[2025:RJ-JP:38897] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1777/2017 Heera Lal Son of Shri Pooran, R/o Bhuda Darwaja, Deeg, Police Station Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan Through P.P. 2. Devendra @ Tuntun Son of Shri Mangilal, R/o Bhuda Darwaja, Deeg, Police Station Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.S. Chauhan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, Addl.G.A. with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 20/09/2025 1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C against order dated 06.03.2017 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Deeg (hereinafter referred to as 'Revisonal Court') in Criminal Revision Petition No.55/2014, wherein learned Revisional Court allowed the revision petition filed by accused respondent No.2 and set aside the order dated 11.03.2014 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deeg (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'). Vide order dated 11.03.2014 passed by the learned trial court, cognizance was taken against the respondent no. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:38897] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1777/2017] 2. As per the brief facts of the case the complainant filed an FIR No.492/2012 registered at Police Station Deeg, District Bharatpur, after investigation of the impugned FIR, negative final report was submitted before learned trial court. 3. However, the petitioner filed a protest petition against the negative Final Report and learned Trial Court rejected the report and took cognizance against respondent No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC vide order dated 11.03.2014. The aforesaid order of cognizance by the learned Trial Court was challenged by respondent No.2 by way of revision petition, wherein learned Revisional Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the order passed by learned trial court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was ample evidence against respondent No.2 to justify taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC, and learned Revisional Court while setting aside the order passed by learned Trial Court, taking cognizance against respondent no. 2, committed an error. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned order dated 06.03.2017 passed by the learned Revisional Court be quashed and set aside, and order dated 11.03.2014 passed by learned Trial Court be restored. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Learned Revisional Court has quashed the order of cognizance on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit any material evidence or medical report in support of his allegation [2025:RJ-JP:38897] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1777/2017] that the respondent No.2 inflicted injury to the petitioner. Learned Revisional Court has categorically found that there is no cogent evidence on record to support the contention of the petitioner- complainant on the basis of which cognizance under Section 323 could be taken against respondent No.2. 8. Thus, this Court finds no illegality in the order passed by learned Revisional Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the case, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. 10. Pending application(s),if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J TANISHA /21