HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6507/2025 Kuldeep Rajan S/o Shri Jainarayan, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Khorabisal, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj). At Present Resident Of Rajan Villa, Plot No. 59, Arun Vihar Niwaru Road, Near Puliya, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Ramavtar Sharma S/o Babulal Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Indokiya, Post Bhambhnori, Tehsil And District Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Vaishnavi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 22.03.2022 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, by which the protest petition filed by the complainant-respondent has been allowed and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was filed by the petitioner, however, the same was also rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-I vide impugned order dated 31.07.2025. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6507/2025] 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only was given by the complainant-respondent to the petitioner to purchase the subject property. Counsel submits that the deal could not be finalized and now, a false and concocted case has been lodged by the complainant- respondent against the petitioner, wherein vague and incorrect allegations have been levelled stating that a sum of Rs.20,90,000/- was given by the complainant-respondent to the petitioner. Counsel submits that till date, the petitioner is ready to return the original amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant-respondent. Counsel submits that all these facts were appreciated by the Investigating Officer and accordingly the final report negative was submitted in the FIR registered by the complainant against the petitioner. However, all these facts have not been appreciated by the learned Court below while taking cognizance against the petitioner, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the protest petition was submitted by the complainant-respondent against the final report negative and after appreciating the evidence available on record, cognizance has been rightly taken against the petitioner, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition, as the (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6507/2025] correctness and genuineness of the allegations cannot be adjudicated by this Court at the stage of taking cognizance. 6. It is settled proposition of law that at the stage of taking cognizance only prima facie case is required to be seen. The defence of the accused cannot be appreciated at this stage. Obviously, the same would be appreciated by the Trial Court at appropriate stage of trial. 7. This Court finds no error in the orders passed by the Courts below, hence the instant criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. 8. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/53