1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Pubic Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners sates that police after investigation had filed FR in this case treating the case as civil nature. Thereafter, the complainant filed protest petition before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Taranagar and statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.PC. has been recorded. Learned Judicial Magistrate after considering the evidence on record took cognizance against the accused-petitioner Shankar Lai for offence under Sections 467, 468 IPC and against the other accused-petitioners under Sections 467, 468 read with Section 120B IPC and also issued warrant of arrest against the petitioners. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate has not considered any ground given by the Investigating Officer in the FR and merely on the basis of statement recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has taken cognizance. He has not given any reasoning for disbelieving the ground of FR given by Investigating Officer.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed this revision petition and stated that learned trial court has i rightly taken cognizance against the petitioners for the alleged offence, at this stage. The rest of the matter can be decided after recording the evidence, therefore, no interference may be called for.

4. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order dated 19.1.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Taranagar as well as record of the case. I do not find any single line in the order passed by learned Judicial Magistrate that he has dealt with grounds of FR. Learned Magistrate after recording the statement under Section 200 Cr.PC. straightaway took the cognizance against the petitioners. He has not given any consideration over the grounds of FR given by the Investigating Officer, therefore, on this count alone the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 19.1.2008 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the trial court with a direction to decide the matter afresh after hearing both the parties in accordance with the law within a period of two months from passing of the order.Record of the trial court be sent back immediately.Revision allowed.

*******