ORDER : Ashok Kumar Jain, J. 1. These two S.B. Criminal Revision Petitions were filed aggrieved from order dated 30.07.2020 in sessions case No. 10/2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur whereby the Trial Court has taken cognizance against Heera Devi and Guddi Devi under Sections 363 and 366 IPC and against Rinku, Vijaypal, Bhura son of Gopi Chand, Bhura son of Pancham Singh under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC. The Trial Court has also directed to call these accused by warrant of arrest. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that for elopement of victim with Rajpal FIR No. 166/2014 was registered at Police Station, kaulari, District Dholpur on 08.08.2014 and after investigation police has filed a charge-sheet against Rajpal under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC and after filing of charge-sheet, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur has taken cognizance on 05.11.2014. He further submitted that thereafter matter was committed to learned Sessions Court and when the matter was fixed for arguments on charge then an application under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. was filed at belated stage on 23.03.2015 for taking cognizance against Jagvir Singh, Virender Singh, Rinku, Mahender Singh, Bhura son of Pancham Singh, Bhura son of Gopi Chand, Vijaypal and Guddi Devi. He further submitted that on 30.07.2020 said application was allowed without any additional evidence and Trial Court has taken cognizance against all these petitioners. He further submitted that once an order of cognizance was passed by the Trial Court then next stage is recording of evidence. He further submitted that after a detailed report by complainant about elopement of adult victim, the police has investigated the matter and after investigation filed a charge-sheet against Rajpal but without considering the circumstances as mentioned by police, the Sessions Court has allowed the application under Section of 193 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that victim is an adult lady and at the time of recovery she was found in bridal make-up which indicate that the victim has posed herself as a married woman. He further submitted that as per record collected by police both victim and Rajpal have stayed in a hotel and police has recorded statement of witnesses and in the instant case no evidence to connect present petitioners is available on record. He further submitted that as per record collected by police both victim and Rajpal have stayed in a hotel and police has recorded statement of witnesses and in the instant case no evidence to connect present petitioners is available on record. He further submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Court clearly shows that it is a non- application of mind and in mechanical manner cognizance was taken. He further submitted that at the first instance, the Trial Court has issued a warrant of arrest contrary to settled principle of law in case of Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttrakhand AIR 2008 Supreme Court 251. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted that Trial Court is competent to pass an order under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. 4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. On basis of a report dated 08.08.2014 lodged by respondent No.2-complainant FIR No. 166/20014 under Sections 363, 366, 376(g) and 342 of IPC was registered at P.S. kaulari, District Dholpur for incident of 16.07.2014. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against Rajpal under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC. During investigation, victim was medically examined and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. Police has also collected evidence relating to hotel and guest house and also call details. After submission of charge-sheet on 05.11.2014, learned Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur has passed an order of cognizance under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC against Rajpal and committed the case to learned Sessions Court on 17.11.2014. After receipt of the case, learned Sessions Judge, Dholpur on 12.01.2015 released the accused Rajpal on bail in pursuant to order dated 08.01.2015 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. On 23.03.2015, an application under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. was filed by complainant which was allowed by impugned order dated 30.07.2020. 6. The issue of cognizance under Section 193 Cr.P.C. was considered in detail by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Dharampal & Ors. Vs. On 23.03.2015, an application under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. was filed by complainant which was allowed by impugned order dated 30.07.2020. 6. The issue of cognizance under Section 193 Cr.P.C. was considered in detail by a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2014) 3 SCC 92 and Dharampal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC 3018 and held that a Sessions Court has jurisdiction on committal of a case to it, to take cognizance of the offences of the persons named as offenders but whose complicity in the case would be evident from the materials available on record. This issue of cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. by Magistrate and 193 of Cr.P.C. by the Sessions Court was again came-up before Hon’ble Supreme in case of Balveer Singh Vs. State of Rajsthan (2016) 6 SCC 680 and after considering the legal position it was held that a Sessions Court is competent to take cognizance in case matter is forwarded to the Sessions Court after committal, if same was not considered by the Magistrate. 7. Section 193 of Cr.P.C. deals with the provision of cognizance by Sessions Court but it does not bar of taking cognizance in case, the Magistrate exercise the power after filing the charge-sheet. Herein, no application whatsoever was filed under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate Court and for the first time complainant has filed an application under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Court, therefore, after considering the law over the point it is clear that the Sessions Court is competent to take cognizance against the petitioners-accused under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. Herein, this case filed for the incident of 16.07.2014 and onwards and same was registered on 08.08.2014 and police has investigated the matter in detail. The police investigation clearly indicate that after recording statement of an adult victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the police has collected evidence from Mathura, Dharuhera and other places. The police has also recorded statement of witnesses involved during the period of elopement of victim. The Trial Court merely relying upon statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance but it has not considered the police report which was filed after a detailed investigation. It is always not safe to rely upon ex-parte version of any person particularly same allegations were investigated. 8. The Trial Court merely relying upon statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance but it has not considered the police report which was filed after a detailed investigation. It is always not safe to rely upon ex-parte version of any person particularly same allegations were investigated. 8. The order dated 30.07.2020 clearly indicate that the Trial Court has not taken note of outcome in investigation and the report of police while considering statement of victim on record. The Trial Court has not taken on the fact that police has recorded statement of several witnesses, who met victim during this period. The victim may be a star witness and the Court may rely upon on oath statement of victim but if there is a contradictory material available on record then it is not necessary for the Trial Court to consider statement of victim as a gospel truth. Herein, this case it appears that the Trial Court has not only ignored the material on record but it has discarded the principle of law that an order of a cognizance is an order passed after application of mind and should not be passed in a mechanical manner. 9. Having considered the material forwarded by police with the charge-sheet, I am of the considered view that the order dated 30.07.2020 is contrary to settled cannons of law, therefore, we are refraining ourselves from opining on merits, thus, these revisions petitions are bound to be allowed and matter is required to be remitted back for consideration afresh. 10. In view of discussions made herein-above, both the revision petitions are hereby allowed and order dated 30.07.2020 in sessions case No. 10/2016 qua present petitioners is hereby set aside. 11. The matter is remitted back for fresh consideration of application under Section 193 of Cr.P.C. in view of discussions made hereinabove after considering the submission of learned counsel for the complainant along with learned Public Prosecutor. 12. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.