1 S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 21/2008 Sadu Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 05.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI, J. Mr. K.N. Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Mukesh Saini, for the respondent. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. This criminal revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 15th December, 2007 rendered by Additional Session Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Khetri, whereby he dismissed the application of the complainant- petitioner Sadu Ram filed under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the police, after completion of investigation, has filed the charge-sheet against two persons namely Ram Kumar and Prabhu Dayal only and set free rest of the accused persons. After examination of prosecution witnesses namely PW-1 Sadu Ram, PW-2 Rohtash Kumar, PW-3 Subhash Chand Saini, PW-4 Lal Chand, PW-6 Smt. Kamlesh W/o. Mukesh, PW-8 Yogesh and PW-9 Smt. Urmila W/o. Sadu Ram, the complainant- petitioner filed an application under Section 2 319 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court praying that there was ample evidence on record against the respondents Nos. 2 to 11, hence, cognizance under Section 498-A and 304-B of IPC be taken against them also but learned trial court did not appreciate the prosecution evidence and arbitrarily dismissed the application. Since, there is ample evidence to proceed against the respondents Nos. 2 to 11, hence, the cognizance of the aforesaid offences be taken against them also. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 11 has defended the impugned order and stated the same to be just and proper and submitted that the impugned order did not call for any interference. 5. At the very outset, it is relevant to record that the court takes the cognizance of the offence and not of the offender. Once the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence, thereafter, he finds as to who the really offenders are? Thus, the Magistrate or the Court never takes cognizance against the offenders. It is the offence, of which the cognizance is being taken by the court. This observation stands fortified by a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Raghubans Dubey vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1967 SC 1167. 3 6. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully scanned the statements of prosecution witnesses, it is noticed that the contradictions emerging in the statements of the witnesses are galore. They have made improvement in their statements from time to time, with an intention to rope in all the members of the family. The witnesses have endeavoured to implicate all brothers, sisters, their husbands', deceased's husband and other family members also. Learned trial court after analyzing the prosecution evidence cautiously and appreciating the same properly, has arrived at a correct finding that there was not sufficient ground to proceed against the respondents nos. 2 to 11 with which I fully concur. The impugned order is found to be just and proper and the same suffers from no infirmity. 7. For the reasons stated above, the criminal revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner Sadu Ram being bereft of merits deserves to be dismissed which stands dismissed accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 107