HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 232/2024 1. Hakimuddin S/o Rehmat, R/o Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 2. Mohammad Ashif S/o Hakimuddin, R/o Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 3. Mohammad Musharraf S/o Hakimuddin, R/o Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 4. Mohammad Ashfaq S/o Hakimuddin, R/o Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 5. Sajida W/o Hakimuddin, R/o Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Accused/Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Akhtar Hussain S/o Rehmat, R/o Village Gangora, Police Station Pahadi, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Himanshu Sharma for Mr.Rahul Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr.Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/05/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 27.07.2022, passed by the Gram Nayayla, Kama, District Bharatpur by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. (2 of 4) [CRLW-232/2024] 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioners before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kama, Bharatpur, the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 20.10.2023. 3. Aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the F.I.R. No.165/2019 was registered by the complainant against the petitioners for the alleged incident where none of them were participated. After investigation, Police found prima facie role of one accused-Hakimuddin and accordingly, charge-sheet was submited against him under Sections 323 & 341 IPC. Thereafter, an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the complainant and the same was allowed and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the above stated offences vide the impugned order dated 27.07.2022. Counsel submits that the petitioner No.2-Mohammad Ashif was posted at the place of his duty and could not have been present at the place of the alleged incident, when the alleged incident has occurred and further, the petitioner No.3-Mohammad Musharraf is a juvenile and, he was preparing for competitive examinations in Jaipur and he also could not have been present at the scene of the alleged offence. Counsel submits that the petitioner No.5-Sajida is a house wife, however, all the family members of the accused-Hakimuddin have been implicated by the complainant with an ulterior motive. Counsel submits that the relevant documents with regard to plea of alibi of the petitioners-Mohammad Ashif & Mohammad Musharraf were submitted before the Court, but the same were not considered (3 of 4) [CRLW-232/2024] and the order impugned has been erroneously passed by the Court below. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made hereinabove, the impugned orders passed by the Courts below are not tenable and sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that on the basis of the prima facie evidence available on record against the petitioners, cognizance has been rightly taken by the Court below by passing a reasoned and cogent order and the same has been rightly upheld by the Revisional Court. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that when the impugned F.I.R. was investigated by the Police, involvement of only one accused- Hakimuddin was found and accordingly, charge-sheet was submitted against him under Sections 323 & 341 IPC. Thereafter, an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the complainant for taking cognizance against the petitioners and looking to the statements of the witnesses, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that prima facie case is made out against all the petitioners for the above stated offences, hence, cognizance has been taken against them. 8. It is the settled proposition of law that plea of alibi of an accused cannot be considered at the stage of taking of cognizance. This plea can be entertained by the Trial Court at the appropriate stage of the trial. It is the settled proposition of law (4 of 4) [CRLW-232/2024] that at the time of taking cognizance, only the prima facie case is required to be seen and meticulous examination and appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses is not required to be done at this initial stage. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Courts below have not committed any error in passing the orders impugned, which warrant any interference of this Court. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to take all available defence, including the plea of alibi, at the appropriate stage of the trial before the Trial Court. 10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /56