JUDGMENT :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, J. - The instant appeal under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1989") aggrieved from an order of cognizance dated 21.9.2019 relating to FIR No. 234/2015, P.S. Mahila Thana, Alwar, whereby learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) No. 1, Alwar, after rejecting the FR, had proceeded to take cognizance against the appellants.

2. The fact in a nutshell that on 20.8.2015, an FIR No. 234/2015 was registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Alwar, on the complaint of a minor victim with the allegation that, when on 19.8.2015 around 11 a.m., the victim was alone at her home, both the appellants forcefully entered her room and tried to rape her. Police after conducting investigation submitted an FR in the matter on various grounds. Thereafter, a protest petition against the Impugned order was passed and a warrant of arrest was issued against the appellants.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant heavily relied upon report submitted by the police after a joint investigation in FIR No. 234/2015, P.S. Mahila Thana, Alwar, FIR No. 346/2015, P.S. Arawall Vihar, 342/2015, 349/2015, P.S. Arawali Vihar and 775/2015, P.S. Kotwall, Alwar; and submitted that in FIR No. 345/2015 registered at P.S. Arawali Vihar, a charge-sheet was filed against Karan Singh, Kedar Singh and Goverdhan Singh but cognizance was taken against appellant No. 1 as well. Aftur framing of charge, trial had already begun in the said case but after Investigation in FIR No. 234/2015, police had submitted a FR before the Court and learned Trial Court without application of mind and over looking the facts submitted with FR, initiated the process for taking cognizance against the appellants, knowing that on similar facts, a charge-sheet in FIR No. 346/2015, P.S. Arawali Vihar had already been filed. He submitted that, on similar facts, appellants were forced to face charges in two cases, one in FIR No. 346/2015, P.S. Arawali Vihar and other in present case.

4. He relied upon the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. , reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 and submitted that the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant in the present matter is mala fide and was Instituted just to harass the present appellants with the ultimate aim of encroaching upon a piece of land for which a serious dispute is already pending before the Civil Court. He further submitted that the facts and the documents submitted along with the petition and thereafter, clearly indicated that the dispute between parties pertained to a piece of land for which a forged agreement and other documents were prepared by the family members of the present complainant. He further referred to the FIR No. 775/2015, P.S. Kotwall, Alwar, wherein, after Investigation, pole had concluded that the signature of Shyain Babu on an agreement, which is in favour of Naval Devi, was forged, and the Investigating officer had filed a charge-sheet against Naval Devi and Mamraj Verma under Sections 420 , 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120B I.P.C.; as Naval Devi and Mamraj Verma are close relatives of the victim/complainant. It is further submitted that at the time of the incident, the appellants were not present at the spot, which can be verified from call details, and the Investigating Officer had concluded that the appellants were not present at the spot and no such crime had actually taken place. He further submitted that the stateme