1. - The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 28.1.2008 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 420 & 120B I.P.C. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order dated 7.3.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajsamand, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 28.1.2008.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2, Mr. Manak Lal, submitted a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajsamand on 5.12.2005, wherein he claimed that Smt. Kamla Devi, petitioner No.1, is the owner of the Marble Mine No.178/85 in village Nizarna. The said mine is looked after by his son, Mr. Deshbandhu, petitioner No.2. Part of this mine was given by them to one Khemraj for operating the said mine. Subsequently, Mr. Khemraj, entered into an agreement with the complainant, Manak Lal. According to the agreement, out of the profit, 60% was to be of the complainant, and 40% was to be retained by the mine owner. According to the complainant, he started operating the mine in the year 2001. However, subsequently because of certain disputes, Mr. Khemraj was removed from the partnership. The complainant further alleged that thereafter, the mine owner continued to operate the mine and when he asked for his part of the share, they denied the same. According to him, he has invested about Rs. 15 lakhs. Moreover, his machines, other articles and goods are still lying in the mines.

3. The said complaint was sent for further investigation under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. On the basis of complaint, FIR No. 658/2005 was registered and investigation commenced. After investigation, the police submitted a negative Final Report. For, according to police, the case was of civil nature with regard to dispute over the money that was ought to have been given to the complainant, according to the complaint. Subsequently, the complainant filed a protest petition. The statement of complainant and his witnesses were recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 28.1.2008, the learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for the aforementioned offences. Since the petitioners were aggrieved by the said order, they filed a revision petition before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 7.3.2009, the learned Judge upheld the cognizance order dated 28.1.2008 and dismissed this revision petition. Hence, the petition before this Court.

4. Mr. Vineet Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that in case the learned Magistrate disagrees with the negative FR submitted by the Police, the learned Magistrate is legally bound to give reasons for his/her disagreement. However, in the present case the learned Magistrate has merely noted the fact that she has perused the negative FR, and without assigning any reasons whatsoever for disagreeing with the FR, she has taken cognizance. Therefore, she has failed to exercise a jurisdiction vested in her. In order to support this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Sampat Singh v. State of Haryana, 1993 SCC (Cri.) 376 .

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has pleaded that this Court, if deemed proper, should send back the case to the learned Magistrate to take cognizance in accordance with law.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.

7. It is, indeed, tried to state that in case the Magistrate were to disagree with the negative FR submitted by the police, he/she is duty bound to give reasons for his/her disagreement. In the case of Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Anr., 2006 (1) RLR 388 , this Court had observed:

"6. Life and personal liberty of every person is of utmost importance. Hence, life and personal liberty cannot be interfered with without a reasonable cause and without a procedure established by law. Taking of cog