JUDGMENT : 1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.08.2023, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Taranagar, District Churu in Sessions Case No.11/2023, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 193 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 08.09.2022, the petitioner submitted a complaint before SHO, PS Taranagar inter-alia alleging therein that his son Rajendra Kumar was running a grocery shop in the village. The accused persons namely Vinod @ Chhagan, Mansukh & Dariya Singh were having enmity with the petitioner’s son because of some money transaction. It has been alleged that few days ago, the accused persons came at the shop of petitioner’s son and demanded money. Some heated arguments took place between them and upon intervention by the family members, the accused persons left the shop while threatening the petitioner’s son to face dire consequences. It has been further alleged that today i.e. 08.09.2022 at 6:30 PM, when the petitioner was sitting outside the house along with his younger son Begraj, they suddenly heard gunshot. Upon which, they saw the accused persons namely Vinod @ Chhagan, Mansukh & Dariya Singh standing towards the shop along with two other persons. Accused persons namely Vinod @ Chhagan & Mansukh were having pistol in their hand and they were continuously firing on the petitioner’ son Rajendra, who was sitting in the shop. The petitioner with his family members rushed towards the shop, upon which the accused-persons fled away. The petitioner took his son to Government Hospital, Taranagar and during treatment his son died. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, Police registered the FIR against the accused persons and commenced investigation. After thorough investigation, Police filed charge-sheet only against accused person Vinod @ Chhagan for offence under Section 302 IPC and Sections 3/25, 27 of Arms Act before the competent court. Thereafter, the learned trial court took cognizance against the accused person and committed the case for trial before the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Taranagar, District Churu, where the petitioner moved an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 and vide order dated 23.08.2023, the learned trial court dismissed the petitioner’s application. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Mr. RS Choudhary, Adv. Sessions Judge, Taranagar, District Churu, where the petitioner moved an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 and vide order dated 23.08.2023, the learned trial court dismissed the petitioner’s application. Hence, this revision petition. 4. Mr. RS Choudhary, Adv. appearing for the petitioner submits that in the FIR, the petitioner/complainant, who was eye-witness of the incident, specifically named the accused Vinod @ Chhagan and respondents No.2 & 3 namely Mansukh Ram & Dariya Singh respectively. Counsel further submits that other eye-witnesses of the case namely Krishan Kumar, Begraj, Rajendra & Smt. Meera also named the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 in their statements, but Police did not record their statements in true perspective. Counsel further submits that since the Police was not fairly investigating the matter, aforesaid eye-witness Krishna Kumar submitted his affidavit before the Superintendent of Police, Churu. Counsel submits that the Police exonerated the accused-respondent No.2 & 3 on the basis of confessional statement of accused Vinod @ Chhagan in which he stated that accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3 were not present at the place of incident. Counsel submits that at this stage, the confessional statement of the accused Vinod @ Chhagan is not relevant at all when the independent witnesses have specifically named the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3. Counsel submits that despite specific allegation against the accused-respondent Nos.2 & 3, the learned trial court did not take cognizance against them. Thus, the finding of learned trial court is absolutely wrong and the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. Counsel has cited the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Balveer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [ AIR 2016 SC 2266 ] and Dharam Pal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [ AIR 2013 SC 3018 ] as well as judgments of this Court in the cases of Sita Vs. State & Ors., SB Cr. Revision No.488/2017 decided on 01.02.2018 and Dileep Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak Meena Vs. State & Ors., SB Cr. Revision Petition No.979/2022, decided on 13.07.2022. 5. Per contra, Mr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. [ AIR 2013 SC 3018 ] as well as judgments of this Court in the cases of Sita Vs. State & Ors., SB Cr. Revision No.488/2017 decided on 01.02.2018 and Dileep Kumar @ Deepu @ Deepak Meena Vs. State & Ors., SB Cr. Revision Petition No.979/2022, decided on 13.07.2022. 5. Per contra, Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3 submits that during investigation, Police collected evidence such as call details of accused persons, their locations and also recorded the confessional statement of co-accused Vinod @ Chhagan and after thorough investigation, Police came to the conclusion that only co-accused Vinod @ Chhagan was present at the place of incident and accused-respondents No.2 & 3 were not present and accordingly, filed FR against them. Counsel further submits that witnesses Dalveer Singh and Balveer Singh have specifically mentioned in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. that they heard from the villagers that accused Vinod @ Chhagan shot upon deceased Rajendra and not accused-respondents No.2 & 3. Counsel submits that the learned trial court after considering all the aspect of the matter has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/complainant and the finding of learned trial court does not require any interference. In support of his contentions, counsel has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Barkat Ali @ Bakki Vs. State of Rajasthan [ (2012) 2 CriLR 628 ] and the judgments of this Court in the cases of SB Cr. Revision Petition No.332/2012, Guddi Devi Vs. State & Ors., decided on 14.12.2012 and SB Cr. Revision Petition No.2573/2019, Brijendra Singh Vs. State & Ors., decided on 10.09.2021. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as carefully gone through the material available on record and the judgments cited by the counsel. 7. In the FIR lodged by petitioner-complainant Dharampal, he specifically alleged that main accused Vinod @ Chhagan and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 namely Mansukh Ram and Dariya Singh came at the shop of his son Rajendra. Accused Vinod @ Chhagan and Mansukh Ram were having pistol in their hand and they shot upon Rajendra and murdered him. The petitioner-complainant Dharampal in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 09.09.2022 also named the accused-respondents No.2 & 3. 2 & 3 namely Mansukh Ram and Dariya Singh came at the shop of his son Rajendra. Accused Vinod @ Chhagan and Mansukh Ram were having pistol in their hand and they shot upon Rajendra and murdered him. The petitioner-complainant Dharampal in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 09.09.2022 also named the accused-respondents No.2 & 3. Another eye-witness Krishna Kumar also deposed in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that at the time of incident, he was present at the shop of deceased Rajendra. He stated that accused Vinod @ Chhagan came at the shop of Rajendra and shot him and fled away in a car, in which 3-4 persons were already present. Subsequently, the said eye-witness Krishna Kumar filed an affidavit before S.P., Churu to the effect that main accused Vinod @ Chhagan along with 3-4 persons was present at the place of incident. Another eye-witness Begraj also named the accused respondents No.2 & 3 for causing injury to the deceased. Witness Ramjilal also stated the same story. Witnesses Meera @ Sunita and Rajendra also named the respondents No.2 & 3 in their statements. 8. From the perusal of the statements of the aforesaid eyewitness and other witnesses, it is revealed that they specifically named the main accused Vinod @ Chhagan and respondents No.2 & 3 for causing gunshot injury to deceased Rajendra. 9. Counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 has argued that witnesses Dalveer Singh and Balveer Singh did not name the respondents No.2 & 3 in their statement. But on perusal of their statements, it appears that they were not present when the incident occurred and they heard from the villagers that accused Vinod @ Chhagan shot upon deceased Rajendra. These witnesses are not an eyewitness of the case, therefore, much reliance cannot be placed on their statements. 10. The Police while submitting FR against respondents No.2 & 3 has given finding that the no call details of accused-respondents were available and their location is also not matched with the location of incident. In the interrogation note of main accused Vinod @ Chhagan, he himself admitted that he shot upon deceased Rajendra and at that time, no other person accompanied him. The Police, relying on the confessional statement of main accused, has exonerated the accused-respondents No.2 & 3. 11. In the interrogation note of main accused Vinod @ Chhagan, he himself admitted that he shot upon deceased Rajendra and at that time, no other person accompanied him. The Police, relying on the confessional statement of main accused, has exonerated the accused-respondents No.2 & 3. 11. In the opinion of this court, the Police has submitted the FR against respondents No.2 & 3 only on the basis of confessional statement given by main accused Vinod @ Chhagan, which is not sufficient to reach at such conclusion despite there being specific allegation levelled against them by the eye-witnesses of the case and such finding of Police is absolutely illegal. 12. While rejecting the application of the petitioner/complainant, the learned trial court also only mentioned about the finding given by the Police for submitting FR against respondent Nos.2 & 3. The trial court did not consider the statements of eye-witnesses, who specifically named the respondents No.2 & 3. At the stage of taking cognizance, meticulous discussions of the evidence is not necessary and if there is sufficient prima facie evidence against an accused, then the court should have summoned the accused for trial. The trial court has passed the order impugned in a mechanical manner and without application of mind. The impugned order being mechanical in nature deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nahar Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.443/2022, decided on 16.03.2022 has held as under : 12. As regards scope of jurisdiction of the Magistrate in a situation of this nature, it was held by the Constitution Bench in the case of Dharam Pal (supra):- “35. In our view, the Magistrate has a role to play while committing the case to the Court of Session upon taking cognizance on the police report submitted before him under Section 173(2) CrPC. In the event the Magistrate disagrees with the police report, he has two choices. He may act on the basis of a protest petition that may be filed, or he may, while disagreeing with the police report, issue process and summon the accused. In the event the Magistrate disagrees with the police report, he has two choices. He may act on the basis of a protest petition that may be filed, or he may, while disagreeing with the police report, issue process and summon the accused. Thereafter, if on being satisfied that a case had been made out to proceed against the persons named in column 2 of the report, proceed to try the said persons or if he was satisfied that a case had been made out which was triable by the Court of Session, he may commit the case to the Court of Session to proceed further in the matter. 36. This brings us to the third question as to the procedure to be followed by the Magistrate if he was satisfied that a prima facie case had been made out to go to trial despite the final report submitted by the police. In such an event, if the Magistrate decided to proceed against the persons accused, he would have to proceed on the basis of the police report itself and either inquire into the matter or commit it to the Court Sessions Court.” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held in para 20 as under : “20. In the cases of Raghubans Dubey (supra), SWIL Ltd.(supra) and Dharam Pal (supra), the power or jurisdiction of the Court or Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on the basis of a police report to summon an accused not named in the police report, before commitment has been analysed. The uniform view on this point, irrespective of the fact as to whether cognizance is taken by the Magistrate under Section 190 of the Code or jurisdiction exercised by the Court of Session under Section 193 thereof is that the aforesaid judicial authorities would not have to wait till the case reaches the stage when jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code is capable of being exercised for summoning a person as accused but not named as such in police report. We have already expressed our opinion that such jurisdiction to issue summons can be exercised even in respect of a person whose name may not feature at all in the police report, whether as accused or in column (2) thereof if the Magistrate is satisfied that there are materials on record which would reveal prima facie his involvement in the offence. None of the authorities limit or restrict the power or jurisdiction of the Magistrate or Court of Session in summoning an accused upon taking cognizance, whose name may not feature in the F.I.R. or police report.” 15. In view of aforesaid discussions, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 23.08.2023 passed by the trial court is set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial court with the direction to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after considering all the material evidence available before it and after hearing both the parties. Stay petition is also decided.