HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5299/2015 1. Bajrang Lal S/o Badrinarayan, R/o Village Bujh, Police Station Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur Rajasthan 2. Pramod Sharma S/o Bajrang Lal, R/o Village Bujh, Police Station Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur Rajasthan ----Accused-Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Bansiram Meena S/o Moti Ram Meena, R/o Digawada, Police Station Rajgarh, District Alwar. Presently Constable No.1145 Police Station Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vijay Choudhary with Mr.Ram Singh Gurjar & Mr.Harsh Parashar For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr.Mohar Pal Meena JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 07.01.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur District Jaipur, by which Final Report submitted by the Police has been rejected and the protest petition submitted by the complainant-respondent has been accepted and cognizance has been taken against the accused-petitioners under Section 332 & 353 IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the accused- petitioners assailed the same before the Court of Additional (2 of 5) [CRLMP-5299/2015] Session Judge No.2, Jaipur District Jaipur, by way of filing revision petition, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 16.09.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the respondent-complainant is a person, who has a habit of filing false cases against the persons and this fact has been found to be proved, when the Final Report ‘Negative’ was submitted by the Police, after thorough investigation of the F.I.R. lodged by the respondent-complainant. Counsel submits that conclusion arrived at by the Police in the Final Report, so recorded by the Investigating Agency, has not been taken into count by the learned Magistrate at the time of passing of the order impugned whereby cognizance has been taken. 4. Counsel submits that a vague story has been concocted by the complainant, whereupon no credence can be placed and that is why, the story so created by the complainant cannot be believed and the same has not been proved before the court below. Counsel submits that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter and the criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. 5. Counsel further submits that the Revisional Court while upholding the cognizance order passed by the Learned Magistrate has not properly exercised his judicious mind and has accepted the findings of the Learned Magistrate for taking cognizance against the accused-petitioners. 6. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by this Court in the case of Ratanlal Vs. State (3 of 5) [CRLMP-5299/2015] of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2012 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 486 and Venni gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 2012 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 259 and the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors. reported in (1998) 5 SCC 749. 7. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the orders impugned passed by the Courts below may be quashed and set-aside. 8. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-complainant opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that duty was assigned to the respondent-complainant to submit a report in a prescribed proforma on account of parole application submitted by a prisoner. The proforma was supposed to be filled by the concerned Sarpanch, i.e., the petitioner No.1 Bajrang Lal, but some altercation took place between the parties and during the said altercation, son of the petitioner No.1 slapped on the face of the complainant, for which a Medico-Legal Report was prepared on the same day, i.e., on 24.10.2010 and a bruise was found in between the eye and the ear of the complainant. Counsel submits that a report with regard to the above incident was registered with the concerned Police Station under Sections 332 & 353 IPC, but the Police has submitted Final Report ‘Negative’ against which a protest petition was filed and on the basis of the evidence available on record, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners, by passing a reasoned and cogent order, which has (4 of 5) [CRLMP-5299/2015] been further upheld by the Revisional Court, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected. 9. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 10. Perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and the documents furnished on the record indicate that some incident has occurred on the date of the alleged offence and a Medico Legal Report was also prepared of the injured for the aforesaid incident on the same day, which prima facie reveals that the complainant has sustained a bruise on his face. Now, the issue that has arisen before this Court is as to whether the allegations levelled against the petitioners by the complainant are correct or not or they have been falsely booked in the instant case or not. In the considered opinion of this Court, these facts cannot be appreciated and adjudicated while exercising inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. It is settled proposition of law that at the time of taking cognizance, only prima facie case is required to be seen and the appreciation/matriculation of evidence of the prosecution case and the defence of the accused is not required to be appreciated at the initial stage and herein the instant case, after considering the reasons prescribed in the Final Report ‘Negative’, the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the statements of the respondent-complainant as well as in the pleading of the protest petition and other evidence available on record, cognizance has been taken by the Court below by passing a reasoned and cogent (5 of 5) [CRLMP-5299/2015] order, which has been further upheld by the Revisional Court by subsequently passing a reasoned and cogent order, which does not require any interference of this Court. 12. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit and substance in the instant petition and the same is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 13. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /28