HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3489/2017 1. Radha Kishan Rochwani S/o Thirthdas R/o Ward No.22, Khairthal, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar, Raj. 2. Thirthdas Rochwani S/o Shri Chibbadmal R/o Ward No.22, Khairthal, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, District Alwar, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.p. 2. Sunil Kumar S/o Late Shri Hansanand R/o Ward No.22, Khaithal, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Bhumika Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP Mr. N.S. Dhakar-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/03/2026 1. By way of filling the present petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 06.05.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kishangarhbas, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 148/2015, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 420/34 and 406 IPC in connection with FIR No. 433/2015 registered with Police Station Khairthal, Alwar. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners approached the Revisional Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Kishangarhbas, Alwar by way of filing a revision petition, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 19.05.2017. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3489/2017] 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence whatsoever, even then they have been falsely implicated in this case. Counsel submits that after through investigation in the above-mentioned FIR, the Investigating Agency did not find any involvement of the petitioners, hence a Final Report (Negative) was submitted, against which a protest petition was filed by the complainant-respondent No. 2 and in the proceedings arising out of the said protest petition, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the above stated offences. Counsel submits that the ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out against the petitioners, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and arguments. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the impugned orders as well as the material available on record reveal the commission of a cognizable offence. On the finding of a prima facie case against the accused- petitioner, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to take cognizance against them for the above stated offences. 7. It is settled proposition of law that at the time of taking cognizance, only the prima facie case is required to be seen. At this initial stage, appreciation and meticulous examination of the evidence is not required to be done. If the contents of the FIR/complaint reveals commission of a cognizable offence and if cognizance has been taken for the alleged offence on the basis of (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3489/2017] the evidence available on record, the defence of the accused cannot be looked into at this initial stage. Hence under these circumstances, this Court finds no error in the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below, which warrant any interference of this Court. 8. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/40