HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3296/2019 1. Devakinandan S/o Ram Lal, R/o Jaliya Second, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer, Raj. 2. Kamla W/o Devakinandan, R/o Jaliya Second, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer, Raj. 3. Asha W/o Kuldeep, R/o Jaliya Second, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer, Raj. 4. Kuldeep D/o Devkinandan,, R/o Jaliya Second, Tehsil Masuda, District Ajmer, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp. 2. Kani Devi W/o Ramkaran, R/o Shiv Colony Dudu Road, Malpura, PS Malpura, District Tonk, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP Mr. H.R.Kumawat JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/03/2026 1. By way of filing the present petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 08.09.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Malpura, District Tonk in FIR No. 264/2013, registered at Police Station Malpura, District Tonk by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 454, 427 and 323/149 IPC. (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3296/2019] 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioners before the Revisional Court i.e. the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura, Tonk, however the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 16.12.2017. 3. Aggrieved by both the impugned orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that an FIR was registered by the complainant-respondent with vague allegation and the same has resulted in the Final Report (Negative), as the involvement of the petitioners was not found to be made out and even an application under Section 169 Cr.P.C was submitted by the Investigating Officer for releasing the petitioners on bail. Counsel submits that against the aforesaid final report, a protest petition was submitted, thereafter, the cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the above stated offences without even going into the reasons of the final report. Counsel submits that the accused Kuldeep, Kamla and Asha were not present on the spot as they were elsewhere when the alleged incident occurred but these facts have been overlooked by the Court below while passing the impugned order. Counsel submits that there is no prima facie evidence available against the petitioners to proceed against them, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that since prima facie case was found to be proved and evidence was also available against the petitioners hence, after considering the said evidence of the witnesses, the (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3296/2019] cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the above stated offences. Counsel submits that the plea of alibi is not required to be looked into at this stage, as in order to take cognizance only prima faice case is required to be seen and in the instant case, a prima facie case has been found against the petitioners and the cognizance has rightly been taken by the Court below by passing a reasoned and cogent order, which has been further upheld by the Revisional Court, hence interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that for the incident dated 04.10.2013, a complaint was submitted by the complainant- respondent before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malpura who sent the same for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the Police Station Malura, wherein the FIR No. 264/2013 was registered under Sections 323, 380, 452 and 120-B IPC and after investigation, the police submitted the Final Report (Negative) against which protest petition was submitted and the statements of the summoned witnesses were recorded. On the basis of the evidence available on record and after taking into account the reasons of the final report, the learned Court has passed a detailed order taking cognizance against the petitioners after finding a prima facie case to proceed against them. 8. The issue in relation to whether some of the accused i.e. Kuldeep, Asha and Kamla were present on the spot at the time of (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3296/2019] alleged occurrence or not, this plea of alibi cannot be looked into at this initial stage of taking cognizance. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the plea of alibi is the defence of an accused which can be looked into at the appropriate stage of the trial before the trial Court in case sufficient evidence is led in this regard by the accused persons. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that at the time of taking cognizance, only a prima facie case is required to be seen. The appreciation and meticulous examination of the prosecution case and the defence of the accused are not required at this stage. In the instant case, after considering the reasons stated in the Final Report, the allegations levelled against the petitioners and the statements of the complainant and other witnesses, the Court below has passed a reasoned and cogent order by taking cognizance against the petitioners, which has further been upheld by the Revisional Court. 11 This Court finds no valid reason to interfere in the matter and accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/52