[2025:RJ-JP:1972] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3661/2017 Nimba Ram S/o Sh. Narayan Ram, age about 45 years R/o Ganpati Nagar, Hathikheda Road, Kotra, Ajmer Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.P. ----Respondents 2. Taradevi Sahu wife of late Shri Sohan Lal Sahu; 3. Bhoopendra Sahu S/o late Shri Sohan Lal Sahu; 4. Mahendra Sahu S/o late Shri Sohan Lal Sahu; No.2 to 4 R/o Near Bairwa Basti, Kotra, Pushkar Road, Ajmer. ------ Accused-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/01/2025 1. Instant petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 27.10.2016 passed by Additional District and Session Judge (Women Atrocity Cases), Ajmer by which the revision petitions submitted by the petitioner as well the accused- respondents against the order dated 07.02.2014 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ajmer, have been rejected. 2. After hearing the arguments on the protest petition submitted against the final report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, passed the order dated 07.02.2014, taking cognizance against the accused-respondents under Sections 341, 323, 506 of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:1972] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3661/2017] 3. On perusal of record, it transpires that the petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the accused persons under Sections 341, 342, 380, 342, 448, 506 and 120B of IPC and under Section 3(5) of the SC/ST Act. The matter was sent for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to Police. After investigation, the police submitted final report negative, against which a protest petition was filed by the petitioner wherein statements of the complainant- petitioner as well as the other witnesses were recorded under Section 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, cognizance was taken for offences under Sections 341, 323, 506 of IPC vide order dated 07.02.2014, against which both the sides preferred revision petitions and the same were dismissed by the common order dated 27.10.2016. 4. The instant petition has been preferred by the complainant- petitioner for taking cognizance against the accused-respondents for rest of the offences i.e. 380, 342, 448 and 120B IPC and under Section 3(5) of the SC/ST Act. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that on the basis of the evidence available on record, cognizance was taken against the accused-respondents under Sections 341, 323, 506 of IPC after finding of a prima facie case against the accused-respondents for proceeding against them for the above stated offences. At the stage of cognizance, prima facie it is required to be seen that the ingredients of the said offences were found to be present or not for proceeding against the accused-respondents. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, neither the Trial Court nor the Revisional Court have committed an error which requires any interference of this Court. [2025:RJ-JP:1972] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3661/2017] 6. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to move appropriate application under Section 216 Cr.P.C for alteration of charge, in case, any evidence is found against the accused- respondents for proceeding against them for rest of the offences for which cognizance was not taken. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J NEERU/61