HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6554/2020 Puran Mal S/o Shri Murari Lal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Gudhachandraji P.S. Ndauti District Karauli (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Chandra Shekhar S/o Shri Vijendra Kumar, R/o Gram Gudhachandraji P.s. Nadoti District Karauli Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakar, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 11.09.2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Shrimahaveer Ji, District Karauli by which cognizance has been against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner assailed the same before the Revisional Court i.e. Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Hindaun City, District Karauli. However, the same was also rejected vide order dated 07.11.2020. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence, even then, he has been falsely (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6554/2020] booked in the instant case. The instant case is a case of civil nature, that is why, the Police, after thorough investigation in the matter, has submitted final report negative and thereafter on protest petition submitted by the complainant, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the above stated offences. Counsel submits that once the Police has not found any case against the petitioner, then there was no reason or occasion available with the Trial Court to take cognizance against the petitioner, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, leaned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the impugned order indicates that on an FIR registered by the complainant, the Police has submitted final report negative, treating the case as civil in nature, against which a protest petition was submitted, wherein statements of the complainant and his witnesses were recorded under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. and after finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, cognizance has been taken against him under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC vide order dated 11.09.2018. The revision petition submitted against the aforesaid order has also been rejected. 8. It is settled proposition of law that at the time of taking cognizance of an offence, only prima facie case is required to be seen and any meticulous examination of the evidence is not required to be done at the initial stage and even defence of the accused cannot be looked into at the stage of taking cognizance. Finding a prima facie case, the orders impugned have been passed (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6554/2020] by both the Courts below by passing a reasoned, cogent and justified orders, which do not require any interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 10. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to take all available defence at the appropriate stage of the trial. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/46