At the cognizance stage, a prima facie case is sufficient for proceeding against accused, and meticulous examination is not required.

Order :

1. Instant revision petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 03.02.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Didwana whereby he dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the complaint filed by the petitioner, a specific averment has been made against the accused respondents deposing the commission of offences but the police has submitted negative FR in this case. The petitioner filed a protest petition in which the statement of complainant Bhanwari Devi and witnesses Jawana Ram, Mohd Yusuf, Sohan lal @ Sohan Ram and Abdl Salam were recorded were recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. & 202 Cr.P.C. All these witnesses clearly state that the accused respondents had beaten the complainant and outraged her modesty, therefore, the offence under Sections 323, 341, 354, 504, 120B IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are clearly made out against the respondents No.2 & 3. Therefore, the impugned order dated 03.02.2006 passed by the court below being illegal be quashed and set aside and cognizance may be taken against respondents No.2 & 3.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that respondent no.4 Allanoor has already expired and the revision petitioner has been dismissed in respect of respondent no.4. So far as the other respondents Parvej and Imamudin are concerned, a specific averment has been made by the complainant that they had caused injuries and outraged her modesty. Since at the stage of taking cognizance, meticulous examination is not warranted, therefore, the trial court has committed an error in not taking cognizance against the respondents No. 2 & 3.

4. Despite service, none appears on behalf of respondents No.2 & 3.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case.

6. The injured complainant and the witnesses in their statements recorded under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C have specifically averred that the accused persons had outraged modesty of complainant and also hurled caste abusive language. When Mohd. Yusuf and Sohan Ram tried to rescue her, a false FIR was lodged against Mohd. Yusuf. In the opinion of this Court, a prima facie is made out against the respondents No.2 & 3 and therefore, trial court ought to have taken cognizance against them.

7. Accordingly, this criminal revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 03.02.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Didwana is hereby quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to take cognizance against the respondents No.2 & 3 and proceed in accordance with law.

8. Record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.