HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8740/2024 Indrajeet S/o Rajesh, R/o Majri Khola, Tehsil And Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Sarla Devi W/o Yogendra, R/o Majri Khola, Tehsil And Police Station Mundawar, District Alwar, (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 21.09.2023 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mundawar, District Alwar, by which the application submitted by the complainant- respondent under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 323 and 341 IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioner before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Mundawar, District Alwar, however the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 04.07.2024. (2 of 4) [CRLMP-8740/2024] 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant criminal misc petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR No.242/2021 was lodged by the complainant respondent Sarla Devi with Police Station, Mundawar, District Bhiwadi under Sections 143, 323, 341, 354 and 452 IPC, wherein allegations were levelled against several accused persons including the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner was not present at the place of incident and this fact has been stated by the independent witnesses as well, that is why after thorough investigation from all four corners, the Police has submitted charge-sheet only against the parents of the petitioner i.e. against the co-accused persons namely Dholi and Sube Singh. Counsel submits that involvement of the petitioner was not found, as no charge-sheet was submitted against him. Counsel submits that after submissions of the charge-sheet, the complainant-respondent submitted an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioner, however, the said application was rejected on 14.09.2022. Thereafter when the Trial commenced and statements of some witnesses were recorded, the complainant-respondent submitted an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioner. At time occasion, the application has been allowed vide impugned order dated 21.09.2023. Counsel submits that with mala fide intention, the complainant-respondent has implicated the petitioner as an accused to spoil his educational (3 of 4) [CRLMP-8740/2024] and service career. In fact the petitioner was not present at the place of incident and this fact has been verified by the independent witnesses of the incident, hence under these circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court and Revisional Court are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that right from the beginning i.e. registration of FIR, and recording of the statements of injured under Section 161 Cr.R.C., specific overt act has been assigned against the petitioner and in-spite of above, Police has not submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner. He further submits that when the statements of the injured witnesses PW-1 Sarla Devi and PW-3 Yogendra have been recorded, the involvement of the petitioner was found to be prima facie proved, that is why, the application was submitted by the complainant-respondent for taking cognizance against the petitioner and the Trial Court has not committed any error in taking cognizance against the petitioner for the above stated offences, hence interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Considering the arguments put forward by rival sides and looking to the material available on the record, it is clear that the petitioner was named in the FIR and statements of the injured persons recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. also reveal that specific overt act was assigned to the petitioner. The (4 of 4) [CRLMP-8740/2024] allegations have been further corroborated by the injured persons when their statements were recorded during the course of trial, hence finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, the Trial Court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner. 8. It is settled proposition of law that at the stage of taking cognizance only prima facie case is required to be seen. The correctness of the allegations cannot be adjudicated at this stage and the same would be appreciated and examined by the Trial Court at appropriate stage of the trial after appreciating the evidence of all other eyewitnesses and material produced before the Trial Court. 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, neither the Trial Court nor the Revisional Court has committed any error in passing the orders impugned, which requires any interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands rejected. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand rejected. 11. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that whatever observations made by this Court for disposal of the instant petition, be not treated as an opinion of this Court on the merits of the case. The Trial Court would be at liberty to pass a final judgment after appreciating the evidence available on the record without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/9