1. - The present misc. petition has been filed assailing the cognizance order dated 01.06.2006, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srimadhopur, Distt. Sikar, as affirmed in revision by the order dated 22.02.2007, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Sikar.

2. Assailing the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that before proceeding to take cognizance on the final report submitted by the Police, it was obligatory for the learned Magistrate to have given reasons as to why he was disagreeing with the reasons given in the final report. It has further been submitted that the learned Magistrate has simply made bald observation that he had considered the statements recorded under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code, but he has not touched the reasons given by the Investigating Agency before proceeding to take cognizance. The counsel has also relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 2006(2) RCC 853.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the order impugned.

4. From a bare perusal of the order impugned, it is clearly revealed that the learned Magistrate has not at all addressed to the consideration/reasons given by the Police for submitting negative final report.

5. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned Magistrate with the direction to pass an afresh order after considering the reasons given by the Investigating Agency in giving negative final report.Petition allowed.

*******