[2026:RJ-JP:15057]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2798/2021 Harpal Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, (M.D Satnam Motocorp Pvt. Ltd.) Registered Office 36, Jawahar Colony, Main Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner/Complainant Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.

2. Kinshuk Sharma S/o Shri Shivsaran Sharma, R/o Alwar Kothi, 01, Pradhan Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, (Ra-

jasthan).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI

Order

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the impugned order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby the criminal revision preferred by the respondent has been allowed and the cognizance order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 500 IPC has been set aside.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the respondent alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and upon consideration of the material available on record, took cognizance against the respondent vide order dated 18.07.2018.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of cognizance, the respondent preferred a criminal revision before the learned Revisional Court. The learned Revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 05.04.2019, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Revisional Court has grossly erred in law while passing the impugned order, as it has exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into appreciation of evidence at the stage of cognizance. It is contended that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out and not, to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence.

5. It is further submitted that the learned Revisional Court has virtually conducted a mini trial by examining the merits of the case and recording the findings touching upon the culpability of the respondent, which is impermissible in law. The impugned order is thus arbitrary, perverse and contrary to settle legal principles.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and submits that no offence under Section 500 IPC is made out from the material available on record and the learned Revisional Court has rightly set aside the order dated 18.07.2018.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled. The inherent powers of this Court are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, only to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. This Court does not sit as a court of appeal over the orders passed by the Courts below.

9. It is equally well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the material available on record. However, such satisfaction must be based on proper application of mind and the essential ingredients of the alleged offence must be disclosed from the complaint and the material produced. In the case of “Nupur Talwar v. CBI, Delhi and Another” reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188 Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 17 of the judgment held as under:

“17. The taking of cognizance means the point in time when a court or a Magistrate takes judi- cial notice of an offence wit