[2025:RJ-JP:22953] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 2703/2019 1. Harendra Singh Rathore S/o Late Dilip Singh, R/o D-9, Paschim Vihar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Also At C-21 And 22 Vaishali Nagar Jaipur Raj. 2. Lokendra Singh Rathore S/o Late Dilip Singh, R/o D-9, Paschim Vihar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Also At C-21 And 22 Vaishali Nagar Jaipur Raj. 3. Deependra Singh Rathore S/o Late Dilip Singh, R/o D-9, Paschim Vihar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Also At C-21 And 22 Vaishali Nagar Jaipur Raj. 4. Mohan Kanwar W/o Late Dilip Singh, R/o D-9, Paschim Vihar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Also At C-21 And 22 Vaishali Nagar Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioners Versus Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of India, 7Th Floor Mayur Shankar Market, New Delhi-110001 Through Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma Chief General Manager. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni with Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 14/05/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioners-accused Harendra Singh Rathore, Lokendra Singh Rathore, Deependra Singh Rathore and Mohan Kanwar aggrieved from order of cognizance dated 06.02.2019 in criminal case No. 140/2018 passed by learned Special Judge, Sati Niwaran (Additional [2025:RJ-JP:22953] (2 of 4) [CRLR-2703/2019] Sessions Judge and Designated Court under IBC, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner while relying upon grounds of revision petition submitted that the respondent-complainant has filed a complaint before learned Trial Court for taking cognizance under Sections 70, 74(1), 74(3) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 IBC and learned Trial Court without considering the basic ingredient of offence has taken cognizance against the petitioners. He further submitted that the facts narrated in the complaint does not reveal any mens rea which is sine qua non for initiation of criminal proceedings and the Trial Court has not considered that the criminal complaint was initiated without disclosing essential element of mens rea in committing the offence. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner also referred the material on record and submitted that the facts narrated in the complaint clearly reflect that it was a commercial business process and if there is any contravention or violation of any terms of any plan under IBC then a proper proceeding can be initiated before the proper forum and the criminal complaint is not a solution. He also submitted that learned Trial Court has not assigned any reason and the order is a non-application of mind. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for respondent and learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that the Presenting Officer, a public servant, after observing violation or contravention of IBC and punishable under the law, filed a complaint with full details and relevant documents. He also [2025:RJ-JP:22953] (3 of 4) [CRLR-2703/2019] submitted that an order of cognizance is just a registration of a case to call accused to face trial. He also submitted that after order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the instant case the complaint has been filed and same is maintainable under the law. He placed reliance upon judgment in case of Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (1967) 2 SCC 397 and Rajesh Talwar Vs. CBI (Delhi) & Ors. MANU/SC/1348/2012. 6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material placed on record and also considered the judgment as referred by learned counsel for respondent. 7. On basis of a complaint under Section 236 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) read with Section 190, 193 and 200 of Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by Umesh Kumar Sharma, Chief General Manager, New Delhi, Learned Special Judge, (Sati Niwaran Cases) (Additional Sessions Judge), Jaipur Metro has passed an order of cognizance on 06.12.2019 and called the petitioners by issuing bailable warrant of ₹10,000/- each. 8. A perusal of material on record clearly indicate that the matter relating to M/s Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. traveled up to Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of civil appeal No. 16929/2017 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 18195/2017 which was disposed of on 23.10.2017. A complaint is filed for initiation of criminal proceedings. The facts narrated in the complaint along with document clearly reflect that they all were considered by learned Trial Court while passing an order dated 06.02.2019 at the stage of cognizance. A reasoned order is not required at the stage of cognizance but the Trial Court is required to show that there was a proper application of mind. [2025:RJ-JP:22953] (4 of 4) [CRLR-2703/2019] 9. In case of Rajesh Talwar Vs. CBI (Delhi) (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the unless the order of cognizance is perverse or passed on no material should be strongly interfered with, after reading the order of Magistrate taking cognizance, the Court comes to the conclusion that there has been due application of mind and it is a well-reasoned order then should not be interfered. In case of Rashmi Kumar (Smt.) Vs. Mahesh Kumar Bhada (supra) while considering the stage of cognizance while relying upon judgment in case of State of Bihar Vs. Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8 SCC 164 it was held that if there is a prima facie case then process is required to be issued. 10. Herein, this case based on fact and further observation about contravention of Resolution Plan it has come to the notice that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under IBC, a criminal complaint is filed. After considering the complaint and an order of cognizance was passe4d with reasons by the designated Court under the IBC. 11. The material on record indicate application of mind and reasons for taking cognizance, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere in the order passed by learned Trial Court, thus, instant revision petitions sans merits and liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the instant revision petition is hereby dismissed with pending application(s), if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /82