HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1465/2017 1. Babu Lal Meena S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Meena R/o Khajalpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Raj. 2. Kailash Meena S/o Shri Nanag Ram Meena, R/o Khajalpura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P. 2. Hukam Chand Meena S/o Shri Raghunath Meena R/o Nangalpuran, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Raj. 3. Ramdhan Meena S/o Shri Raghunath Meena R/o Nangalpuran, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/03/2026 1. By way of filing the present petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 26.10.2016, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 12, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur by which the Final Report (Negative) submitted by the Investigating Authority has been rejected and the protest petition submitted by the complainant-respondent has been accepted and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners and other co-accused persons for the offences under Sections 420, 423, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and they have been summoned through arrest warrants. (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1465/2017] 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners approached the revisional Court i.e. the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No. 15, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur by way of filing a revision petition, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 23.02.2017. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. 4. None present on behalf of the petitioners but looking to the fact that this petition is lying pending for its adjudication before this Court since 2017 i.e. more than nine years, this Court deems it just and proper to peruse the contents of the petition and the grounds of challenge taken therein to decide the same. 5. The contents of the petition indicate that the petitioners have no concern with the alleged incident as they were neither sellers, purchasers nor witnesses to the alleged offence. The allegations levelled against them were found to be incorrect and therefore, a Final Report (Negative) was submitted by the police. However, cognizance has been taken on the basis of the protest petition filed by the complainant-respondent. It has been urged in the petition that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for taking cognizance, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the contents of the petition. 7 A perusal of the record indicates that as per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the accused persons including the petitioners had taken the complainant party for selling their property to a third party without payment of any consideration, hence the (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1465/2017] offence of cheating and fraud was alleged to have been committed by them. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the above stated offence and found a prima facie case to proceed against them. 9. It is the settled proposition of law that at the time of taking cognizance, only prima facie case is required to be seen. The meticulous examination and appreciation of the evidence and the defence of the accused is not required to be seen at this initial stage. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, hence interference of this Court is not warranted. 11. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed but looking to the fact that cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the above stated offences and they have been summoned straightaway by issuing arrest warrant but looking to the nature of allegations and the offences for which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate could have summoned them through summons or bailable warrants instead of issuing arrest warrants at the first instance. 12. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to convert the arrest warrants issued against the petitioners into bailable warrants. In case, the petitioners appear before the Trial Court on or before 28.04.2026, the Trial Court is directed to release the petitioners (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1465/2017] on bail, after taking their personal and surety bonds to its satisfaction. 13 Since, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners, hence they are not aware about passing of this order. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the petitioners for their intimation and information. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/58