[2025:RJ-JP:45019]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 948/2017

1. Jagdish S/o Shri Gyarsa, R/o Norangpura, Tehsil Kotputali, Distt. Jaipur Raj.

2. Gokal S/o Shri Gyarsa, R/o Norangpura, Tehsil Kotputali, Distt. Jaipur Raj.

3. Jairam S/o Shri Gyarsa, R/o Norangpura, Tehsil Kotputali, Distt. Jaipur Raj.

4. Ramniwas S/o Shri Gokul, R/o Norangpura, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur Raj.

5. Vishambhar S/o Shri Phoola, R/o Norangpura, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur Raj.

6. Sarbati W/o Shri Phoola, R/o Norangpura, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur Raj.

7. Suman W/o Shri Vishambhar, R/o Norangpura, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur Raj.

8. Dholi W/o Shri Ramniwas, R/o Norangpura, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur Raj.

9. Sunehari W/o Shri Jagdish, R/o Norangpura, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur Raj.

----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

10/11/2025

1. The petitioners have filed this criminal miscellaneous petition challenging order dated 14.09.2016 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.), whereby revision petition filed by the petitioners against cognizance order dated 22.06.2010 has been rejected. Petitioners have also assailed the cognizance order dated 22.06.2010, whereby Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli has taken cognizance of offences under Section 427, 447, 323/149 of IPC against the petitioners.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to above FIR No.182/2002, the police authorities initiated investigation and found that no such incident as alleged in the FIR has taken place and accordingly, negative final report was proposed by the Investigating Officer.

3. However, feeling aggrieved by negative final report, the complainant filed protest petition, whereupon cognizance under Section 427, 447, 323/149 IPC was taken by the trial Court vide order dated 09.02.2005. Such cognizance order was challenged by the petitioners before the revisional Court, whereby cognizance taken by the trial Court was quashed and matter was remanded back for fresh consideration.

4. After remand, learned trial Court in quite mechanical manner again took cognizance against the petitioners for aforesaid offences. Order passed by the trial Court was again challenged by the petitioners by way of filing the revision petition which has also been dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2016.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thus, while taking cognizance, learned trial Court has totally ignored the negative final report submitted by the investigation agency and has solely relied upon the statements given by the complainant and witnesses under Section 200 & 202 of Cr.P.C. Thus, there is procedural irregularity as well as delay in taking cognizance against the petitioners. The jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court has also not been appreciated by the revisional Court and revision petition has also been dismissed without proper application of judicious mind.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the instant petition and submitted that both the Courts below have given categorical finding on the basis of material on record and have not committed any error much less than jurisdictional error in the instant matter.

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

8. It is a settled proposition of law that at the time of taking cognizance, the trial Court is not required to conduct meticulous examination of the evidence and is only required to peruse the contents of FIR along with material on record. In the instant case, it is apparent from bare perusal of FIR that the specific allegations have been levelled in the FIR, which prima facie makes out cognizable offence against the petitioners and p