The central legal point established in the judgment is the Magistrate's authority to take cognizance of offences based on evidence collected by the police and to issue process against the accused, including those not named in the charge-sheet if they are prima facie guilty of the alleged offence.

H.R. Panwar, J.-By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"), the petitioner-complainant has challenged the order dated 12.03.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh (for short, "the Revisional Court") in Criminal Revision Petition No. 65/2003, whereby the revisional Court set-aside the order dated 22.03.2003 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh (for short, "the trial Court") whereby the trial Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324 and 323/34, IPC against respondent No. 2 Smt. Kaushalya apart from taking cognizance of the offences against co-accused Prithvi Ram, Aati Ram alias Atma Ram, Sahab Ram and Sudesh Kumar. Aggrieved by the order of the revisional Court, the petitioner-complainant has filed the instant revision petition.

2. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the order impugned passed by revisional Court as well as the order dated 22.03.2003 passed by the trial Court taking cognizance of the offences against the respondent No. 2.

3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that on the strength of Parcha-Bayan of the petitioner, Crime Report No. 153/2003 was registered against the respondent No. 2 and other co-accused. After investigation, the police filed challan against the co-accused Prithvi Ram, Aati Ram alias Atma Ram, Sahab Ram and Sudesh Kumar; however, no challan was filed against respondent No. 2 Smt. Kaushalya & three Ors., viz. Smt. Guddi Devi W/o Sahab Ram, Smt.Sharda W/o Prithivi Ram and Manju Devi D/o Lekh Ram. On filing of the challan by the police against four co-accused noticed-above, the complainant-petitioner filed an application before the trial Court for taking cognizance of the offences also against the accused who were left out by the police, whereupon the trial Court took cognizance of the offences against the respondent No. 2. According to the learned Counsel for the complainant-petitioner, the order taking cognizance of the offences passed by the trial Court has been arbitrarily and erroneously interfered by the revisional Court. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent submitted that there was no material before the trial Court to take cognizance of the offence against the respondent No. 2 and other ladies named in the application by the complainant-petitioner.

.4. The facts giving rise to the instant revision petition are that on 22.05.2002, Rajendra Singh, ASI, recorded the statement of injured-complainant at Government Hospital, Hanumangarh Town. The injured-complainant stated in his Parcha-Bayan that on 21.05.2002, at about 8:30 PM, accused Prithvi Ram and Aati Ram caught-hold the complainant and a sum of Rs. 1,600/-was taken out from the pocket of his shirt by accused Prithvi Ram and started beating him. The wife of Jas Ram viz. Smt. Kaushalya, respondent No. 2, came from behind armed with a Gandasi and inflicted a Gandasi-blow to him. Co-accused Sudesh, Sahab Ram and his wife, Prithvi Rams wife and niece of Jas Ram inflicted Gandasi and Lathi blows to him. Due to the beatings given by the accused, his brother and son Sandeep also suffered injuries. Thereafter, they were taken to the hospital. On this Parcha-Bayan, the Crime Report No. 153/2003 was registered by the police and investigation ensued. After investigation, the police did not find any offence having been committed by respondent No. 2 Smt. Kaushalya, Smt. Guddi Devi, Sharda and Manju; however, challan was filed against accused Prithvi Ram, Aati Ram, Sahab Ram and Sudesh. On an application filed by the petitioner-complainant, the trial Court prima

.facie came to the conclusion that in the statement (Parcha-Bayan) of the petitioner, it has been clearly stated that the wife of Jas Ram, i.e., respondent No. 2 Smt. Kaushalya, inflicted Gandasi blow on the head of complainant-petitioner. The complainant-petitioner, in his statement under Section 161,