At the cognizance stage, only a prima facie case is required, and the merits of the allegations should not be evaluated.

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 25.06.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakshmangarh, District Sikar by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 452, 323 and 341/34 IPC.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners submitted a criminal revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Lakshmangarh, District Sikar and the same was rejected vide order dated 18.09.2021 and the order of taking cognizance was upheld.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by both these orders, the petitioners approached this Court on earlier occasion by way of filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 6655/2021, however the same was withdrawn by the petitioners on 27.08.2022 with liberty to take all the averments at the stage of framing of the charges. The following order was passed on 27.08.2022 at the request of the petitioner:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioners wants to withdraw this criminal miscellaneous petition with liberty to take all the averments against the impugned order at the time of charge.
Order accordingly.

Stay application also stands disposed of.”

4. Thereafter, the petitioners have again approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition and this Court rejected the instant petition vide order dated 03.01.2023 observing therein that the fact with regard to filing of the earlier misc. petition bearing No. 6655/2021 was suppressed and concealed and on this count alone, the misc. petition was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2023, the petitioners approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of filing Criminal Appeal No. 2190/2024 and the same was allowed vide order dated 22.04.2024 with the following observations and directions:-

2. The impugned order is sought to be quashed on the sole premise that notwithstanding the specific averments made about the earlier proceedings, it was passed as if the appellant(s) has suppressed the said fact.

3. We have also perused the documents filed which clearly indicate that the appellant(s) did make a mention in the pleadings which was not taken note of by the High Court while passing the impugned order. As it has been passed without going into the merits, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court to decide it in accordance with law.

6. Under these circumstances, the instant misc. petition came up before this Court for consideration on its merit.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in counter blast to the FIR registered by the petitioners, a false case has been lodged by the other side, wherein after investigation, the police submitted Final Report (Negative). Counsel submits that at the time of conducting the investigation in the FIR registered against the petitioners, the statements of witnesses Kamla and Vikas Kumar were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, wherein they have not alleged anything against the petitioners. Counsel submits that as per the statements of these two witnesses, no such incident has occurred. Counsel submits that taking note of this fact, Final Report (Negative) was submitted by the Investigating Agency against which a protest petition was filed by the complainant, wherein the statements of three witnesses namely CW1-Kamla, CW2-Vikas Kumar and CW3- Hariram Verma were recorded. Counsel submits that these witnesses have improved their version by making contradictory statements and they have levelled false allegations ag