1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The accused-petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. against the impugned order dated 8.5.2006 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danta Ramgarh, District Sikar in Regular Criminal Case No. 30/2005 whereby cognizance for offences under sections 376, 323 and 120-B. I.P.C. has been taken against the petitioner.

3. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that non-petitioner complainant Smt. Chhagan Kanwar sent a written report by post to the Court below in which serious allegations were made against four persons including the present petitioner for rape etc. and that report was sent by the Court to the police station concerned upon which F.I.R. No. 45/03 was registered for offences under sections 376 and 323. I.P.C. The police after investigation found the allegation baseless and arrived at a conclusion that no such incident occurred and the prosecutrix has levelled allegation of rape on the instance of one Shri Gheesaram Meena. Consequently, the police filed negative Final Report (F.R.) before the Court below. The non-petitioner-complainant filed protest petition in respect of negative final report and statements of four witnesses were recorded under section 202, Cr.P.C. and the Court below took cognizance for the offences under sections 376 and 323, I.P.C. against four persons including the present petitioner vide order dated 17.2.2005. The petitioner filed revision petition against the order dated 17.2.2005 before Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track). Sikar and the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 16.9.2005 set aside the order of cognizance dated 17.2.2005 and it directed the Court below to reconsider the matter in strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 202 Cr.P.C. in compliance of the order of the Revisional Court, the Court below recorded the statement of non-petitioner under section 200. Cr.P.C. and after considering the material available on record by passing impugned order dated 8.5.2006 the Court below again took cognizance against the same four persons including the present petitioner for of- fences under sections 376 and 323, I.P.C. read with section 120-B. I.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this petition.

4. Assailing the impugned order the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions:-

(i) During investigation police collected oral as well as documentary evidence, but for taking cognizance the Court below considered evidence collected under sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. only whereas the legal requirement is that in such a case for taking cognizance evidence collected during investigation has also to be considered, therefore, the order of cognizance is illegal and liable to be set aside.

(ii) The Court below was obliged to assign reasons why the evidence collected during investigation could not be believed, but in the present case the Court below has assigned no reasons differing from the conclusion arrived at by the police.

(iii) Although, the word "cognizance" has not been defined in Criminal Procedure Code, but it is well settled that for taking cognizance for an offence, the Court has to apply its mind to the evidence available on record so as to make a judicial order of taking "cognizance", but in the present case it does not appear that the Court below applied its mind for taking cognizance. It is so by the reason that the impugned order dated 8.5.2006 is a composite order not only for taking cognizance but also summoning the present petitioner and three other persons as accused whereas legally cognizance is taken for an offence as soon as the Magistrate proceeds to make an enquiry under sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. Taking of cognizance by way of impugned order dated 8.5.2006 means cognizance was taken on the basis of evidence collected under sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. and not upon the compl