[2025:RJ-JP:40738] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2629/2019 1. Mohar Singh S/o Gangasahay, R/o Murlipur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Raj. 2. Bhonrilal S/o Gangasahay, R/o Murlipur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Raj. 3. Ramsingh S/o Gangasahay, R/o Murlipur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Raj. 4. Jaisingh S/o Bonrilal, R/o Murlipur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Raj. 5. Raisingh S/o Kishanlal, R/o Murlipur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Raj. 6. Bheekham Singh S/o Kishan Lal, R/o Murlipur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Raj. 7. Dhara Singh S/o Mohar Singh, R/o Murlipur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Raj. 8. Rajendra S/o Mohar Singh, R/o Murlipur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Raj. 9. Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Mohar Singh, R/o Murlipur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Raj. 10. Smt. Guddi Devi W/o Rajendra Singh, R/o Murlipur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Raj. 11. Smt. Bhonti Devi W/o Dhara Singh, R/o Murlipur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Raj. 12. Smt. Gulab Devi W/o Bhonrilal, R/o Murlipur, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Lakhma W/o Jagdish, R/o Murlipura, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Pallavi Mehta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prahlad Sharma Mr. Ram Prasad Sharma Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/10/2025 1. Petitioners have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for challenging order dated [2025:RJ-JP:40738] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-2629/2019] 05.03.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bandikui, District Dausa, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against order of cognizance dated 17.08.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikrai, District Dausa has been dismissed. 2. It is stated that the complainant-respondent filed complaint before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikria, District Dausa on 02.11.2015 alleging therein that her husband Vijay Singh purchased a plot vide sale deed dated 04.03.2015. However, on 10.07.2015, the accused-petitioners attacked the complainant by unauthorisedly entering into her premises and damaged the boundary wall and also caused injuries. Pursuant to aforesaid FIR, investigation was conducted by the investigation agency and a negative final report was proposed with the statement that no offence whatsoever has been committed by the petitioners and in fact civil litigation was going on between the parties. The complainant lodged protest against such negative final report proposed by the investigation agency and on the protest petition, the trial Court took cognizance against the petitioners vide order dated 17.08.2016 for committing offences under Section 147, 352, 427 & 504 read with Section 149 of IPC. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the cognizance order, the petitioners filed revision petition, however, the same has been dismissed by the revisional Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that instead of considering the material contained in the negative final report, the learned trial Court, while taking cognizance has [2025:RJ-JP:40738] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-2629/2019] taken into consideration the statements under Section 200 & 202 of Cr.P.C. given on behalf of complainant. It was submitted that the cognizance order was passed without due application of judicious mind and ignorance of relevant material on record. It was also submitted that the revisional Court had also utterly failed to exercise its jurisdiction in proper manner and the revision petition has been dismissed in a mechanical way without appreciating the grounds raised by the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2019) 8 SCC 27. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant opposed the criminal miscellaneous petition and supported the impugned orders. An objection has also been raised that in the garb of the instant criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioners have virtually filed a second revision petition, against the order passed by the revisional Court, which is otherwise not permissible on account of statutory bar under Section 397(3) of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the instant criminal miscellaneous petition is an abuse of the process, and inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 cannot be extended so as to re- appreciate the material, which was taken into consideration by the trial Court at the time of taking cognizance. It is submitted that the Criminal Court, at the stage of cognizance is required to examine the material available on record for the purpose of satisfying itself that prima facie offences are made out against the accused. [2025:RJ-JP:40738] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-2629/2019] 6. In the instant case, the cognizance order itself, the material as well as statements taken into consideration have been mentioned specifically by the trial Court. The revisional Court has rightly rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner as it found no jurisdictional error on the part of the trial Court in taking cognizance against the petitioners. 7. Heard and considered. 8. One of the question which arises for consideration of this Court is that inherent jurisdiction can be invoked by the petitioners against order of cognizance, which has already been examined by the revisional Court. It is a settled proposition of law that jurisdiction under Section 482 cannot be exercised in a routine manner and it has to be exercised sparingly, more particularly in the cases where there is apparent and manifest miscarriage of justice occurring to the petitioners on account of orders passed the learned Court below. 9. It is equally well settled that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are of widest amplitude and are not curtailed merely because a remedy of revision has already been availed of by the petitioners. The mere fact that the revisional court has passed order under Section 397 Cr.P.C. does not take away the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of such order, provided that the case falls within the parameters laid down under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can always interfere with an order of the subordinate or even revisional court, if the same results in palpable injustice, amounts [2025:RJ-JP:40738] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-2629/2019] to an abuse of process, or where the proceedings are manifestly attended by any party with malafide. 10. This Court finds support from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishnan & Anr. Vs. Krishnaveni & Anr., reported in 1997 (4) SCC 241, wherein it has been held that though the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court is distinct from its inherent jurisdiction, the power can nevertheless be exercised even after the revisional order to prevent miscarriage of justice or abuse of process of the Court. Following part of the aforesaid judgment is relevant:- "In view of the above discussion, we hold that though the revision before the High Court under sub-section (1) of Section 397 is prohibited by sub-section (3) thereof, inherent power of the High Court is still available under Section 482 of the Code and as it is paramount power of continuous superintendence of the High Court under Section 483, the High Court is justified in interfering with the order leading to miscarriage of justice and in setting aside the order of the courts below." 11. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that filing of a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against an order passed by the revisional court is not barred in law, though such jurisdiction is to be exercised within the well recognized limits of preventing abuse of process of law and to secure the ends of justice. 12. In the instant case, on bare examination of the order passed by the trial Court would reveal that while taking cognizance, the learned trial Court has examined the statements recorded by the investigation agency under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Reference of statements given by witnesses Bhim Singh, Vijay [2025:RJ-JP:40738] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-2629/2019] Singh, Sukhram, Bachi and Ramnath has also been given in order dated 17.08.2016 passed by the learned Court below in order to satisfy itself that prima facie case for taking cognizance is made out against the accused-petitioners. 13. Merely the fact that the investigation agency had proposed negative final report in respect of FIR in question, would not divest the trial Court of its jurisdiction to examine the material during investigation and the statements recorded by the investigation agency during investigation. Moreso, when protest petition was filed by the complainant against such proposed negative final report. After examining the relevant statements, the trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion that prima facie case has been made out against the accused-petitioners. 14. The revisional Court while deciding the revision petition filed by the petitioners has also given cogent and sound reasoning for not entertaining the revision petition filed by the petitioners and quite rightly finding has been given that at the time of cognizance, meticulous examination of the entire material including defence of the accused is not required to be examined and merely on the basis of material on record, it is to be considered that whether sufficient material is there on record to take prima facie cognizance of the offence. Merely, the fact that before taking cognizance, statements under Section 200 & 202 of Cr.P.C., have been recorded by the trial Court on protest petition filed by the complainant, would not vitiate the proceedings for the reason that the protest petition against negative final report can be treated as a complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. and hence, the Magistrate is required to record and rely upon the statements [2025:RJ-JP:40738] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-2629/2019] under Section 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance and apart from the statements under Section 200 & 202 even the material collected by the investigation agency including the statements of witnesses can be duly considered by the Court below while taking cognizance. 15. In the case of Vishnu Kumar Tiwari (supra), relied by the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that even after submitting negative final report, if the protest petition filed by the complainant reveals any such material that it persuades the Court to disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the Investigation Officer, cognizance can be taken under Section 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. In the instant case, the trial Court has not violated the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and reasons have been assigned to disagree with the conclusion earlier proposed by the investigation agency. 16. Thus, the petitioners have utterly failed to point out any manifest illegality or perversity in the impugned orders, which may cause serious prejudice or failure of justice to the petitioners, so as to enable them to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court. 17. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this Court finds no merit and substance in the instant criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioners, and the same, is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /53