HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3296/2019

1. Devakinandan S/o Ram Lal, R/o Jaliya Second, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer, Raj.

2. Kamla W/o Devakinandan, R/o Jaliya Second, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer, Raj.

3. Asha W/o Kuldeep, R/o Jaliya Second, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer, Raj.

4. Kuldeep D/o Devkinandan,, R/o Jaliya Second, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer, Raj.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

2. Kani Devi W/o Ramkaran, R/o Shiv Colony Dudu Road, Malpura, PS Malpura, District Tonk, Raj.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP Mr. H.R.Kumawat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

28/03/2026

1. By way of filing the present petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 08.09.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Malpura, District Tonk in FIR No. 264/2013, registered at Police Station Malpura, District Tonk by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 454, 427 and 323/149 IPC.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioners before the Revisional Court i.e. the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura, Tonk, however the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 16.12.2017.

3. Aggrieved by both the impugned orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that an FIR was registered by the complainant-respondent with vague allegation and the same has resulted in the Final Report (Negative), as the involvement of the petitioners was not found to be made out and even an application under Section 169 Cr.P.C was submitted by the Investigating Officer for releasing the petitioners on bail. Counsel submits that against the aforesaid final report, a protest petition was submitted, thereafter, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the above stated offences without even going into the reasons of the final report. Counsel submits that the accused Kuldeep, Kamla and Asha were not present on the spot as they were elsewhere when the alleged incident occurred but these facts have been overlooked by the Court below while passing the impugned order. Counsel submits that there is no prima facie evidence available against the petitioners to proceed against them, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that since prima facie case was found to be proved and evidence was also available against the petitioners hence, after considering the said evidence of the witnesses, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the above stated offences. Counsel submits that the plea of alibi is not required to be looked into at this stage, as in order to take cognizance only prima faice case is required to be seen and in the instant case, a prima facie case has been found against the petitioners and the cognizance has rightly been taken by the Court below by passing a reasoned and cogent order, which has been further upheld by the Revisional Court, hence interference of this Court is not warranted.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that for the incident dated 04.10.2013, a complaint was submitted by the complainant- respondent before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malpura who sent the same for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Malura, wherein the FIR No. 264/2013 was registered under Sections 323, 380, 452 and 120-B IPC and after investigation, the police submitted the Final Report (Negative) against which protest petiti