Kishore Singh Lodha, J.
1. This revision has been filed by the accused-persons against the order of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Pali dated 19-11-1981 by which on a complaint filed by the non-petitioner No. 2 Ramchandra, the Munsif has taken cognizance of offence Under Section 427, 323 and 147, IPC, against them.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the record. Three contentions have been raised before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners. His first contention is that the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind properly to the material on record before taking cognizance against the petitioners. His second contention is that the learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the fact, that the police has already filed a final report in connection with these very offences against the petitioners and his third contention is that the learned Magistrate has not recorded the reasons for the conclusion of taking cognizance against the petitioners. Having considered the material on the record, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for with the order of the learned Magistrate at this stage. It is true that the learned Magistrate has not referred to the fact that a final report had been filed by the police, but merely on this account, it cannot be concluded that he has oblivious of the fact that the police had filed a final report because this matter has been referred to in the complaint as also in the statement of complainant Ramchandra, Under Section 200, Cr.PC, and the learned Magistrate has referred to his statement. The learned Magistrate has clearly stated that he has gone through the record and has considered the evidence of the complaint. It, therefore, appears that he has applied his mind to the material on record. It is not necessary for a Magistrate taking cognizance to refer in detail to the material on record, while taking cognizance of an offence against the accused-petitioner.
3. The last contention also does not have any substance in as much as it is only Under Section 203 that while dismissing a complaint the Magistrate has to briefly record his reasons for doing so, but for taking cognizance for issuing process against the accused Under Section 204, Cr. PC, the Magistrate is not required to record a reasoned order. The learned counsel has referred to Udey Bir Singh v. Shakuntala Devi 1974 Cr. LJ 187, Ranjit Puri v. Uggar Sain 1974 Cr LJ 1229 and Ram Narain v. Vimal Kumar, etc. 1982 RLR 518 in support of his contention that while taking cognizance against an accused, the learned Magistrate has to record his reasons, but a careful perusal of these authorities would go to show that this is not so. Those are cases in which the Magistrate had taken cognizance against some of the accused persons, but had dismissed the complaint against others without giving reasons and it was in that connection that the courts observed that reasons should have been recorded.
4. In these circumstances, the revision petition has no substance and it is hereby rejected.