1 S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.650/2007 Surender Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Judgment :: 12th February, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, for the petitioners. Mr. Narendra Moolchandani, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Pradeep Shah, for the respondent No.2. .... To challenge the order dated 10.4.2007, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, taking cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A India Penal Code against the petitioners, this revision petition is preferred. In brief, facts of the case are that on 11.1.2007 Smt. Mohan Kanwar wife of Surendra Singh filed a complaint in the court of learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi, that was forwarded to the police station Sirohi for investigation as per provisions of Section 156(3) Criminal Procedure Code. In the complaint it was stated that Smt. Mohan Kanwar was married with Surendra Singh on 24.2.1995 and she was ill-treated, harassed and tortured by her husband and other family members. An allegation for demand of dowry was also made. The investigating agency 2 submitted a final negative report, however, learned trial court by accepting protest petition took cognizance for the offence under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. While challenging the same, the contention of counsel for the petitioners is that the trial court should have given reasons to disbelieve the final negative report. I have examined the order impugned, from perusal whereof it reveals that the trial court examined the entire record and on basis of the statements of the complainant as well as of the accused persons Surendra Singh, Leela Devi, Praveen Singh, Kaushalya Devi, Smt. Shyama and Harish Singh, found prima facie evidence for taking cognizance against the petitioners. It is true that the trial court has not discussed the evidence in detail but I am of the view that at this stage threadbare discussion of the evidence or the material available is not required. As such, I do not find any error in the order impugned that may warrant interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners shall be at 3 liberty to contest the charge if any is framed against them for offence punishable under Section 498-A Indian Penal Code or otherwise. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.