HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5019/2016 1. Rambabu son of late Shri Karan 2. Smt. Chandravati wife of Shri Rambabu both resident of Targava Tehsil and Police Station Bhusawar District Alwar. 3. Chandrashekhar son of Shri Rambabu 4. Smt. Sunita wife of Shri Chandrashekhar, both resident of Targava Tehsil and Police Station Bhusawar District Alwar, presently resident of 7/389, Rajasthan Housing Board, Bhiwadi District Alwar. 5. Smt. Manju wife of Shri Dineshpal, resident of 7/382, Rajasthan Housing Board, Bhiwadi District Alwar. .. Accused Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan Through the PP. ---Non Petitioner 2. Phoran Singh son of Shri Chanda Singh, resident of 8/387, UIT Colony, Bhiwadi Police Station Bhiwadi Phase-III Disrict Alwar. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Namo Narayan Meena for Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakar, PP Mr. Samarth Shama JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhiwadi, Alwar, by which the application submitted by the complainant-respondent under (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5019/2016] Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Section 498A and 323 IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners submitted a revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Tijara, District Alwar. However, the same was also rejected vide order dated 07.09.2016 and the order dated 21.06.2016 passed by the Magistrate has been upheld. 3. Learned counsel submits that the FIR was registered against all the accused persons including the petitioners, but after investigation, the Police found involvement of the husband of the victim only and accordingly, the charge-sheet was submitted solely against him. Counsel submits that there exists no evidence against the petitioners for taking cognizance against them, hence, under these circumstances, the orders passed by the Courts below are required to be quashed and set-aside. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant oppose the arguments and submit that there exists sufficient evidence to proceed against the accused petitioners, that is why, the orders impugned have been passed by both the Courts below, which do not require any interference of this Court and the instant petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that an FIR has been registered by the complainant informant against the husband of the victim as well as the petitioners with regard to harassment of the victim. The Police has submitted charge-sheet against the (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5019/2016] husband of the victim only and left the petitioners, hence, under these circumstances, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been submitted by the complainant for taking cognizance against the petitioners as well. 7. After perusing the evidence available on the record and the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of the trial, the learned Magistrate found prima facie case against the petitioners, that is why, cognizance has been taken against them for the above stated offences. The order passed by the Court below has been further upheld by the Revisional Court by passing a detailed cogent order. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the orders impugned have been passed on the basis of the prima facie evidence available against the petitioners. This Court finds no error in the orders impugned passed by both the Courts below, which requires any interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition is dismissed. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 10. However, looking to the fact that the orders impugned were passed more than a decade back, it is expected from the Trial Court to make all possible endeavours to speed up the proceedings of the trial, in case, the trial is still pending. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/24