[2025:RJ-JP:43203] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2550/2025 1. Ramgopal Son Of Late Shri Jwala Prasad., Resident Of Bhandaur Kalan, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 2. Devo @ Surendra Son Of Late Shri Jwala Prasad., Resident Of Bhandaur Kalan, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 3. Chandrabhan @ Radharaman Sharma Son Of Late Shri Jwala Prasad., Resident Of Bhandaur Kalan, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 4. Ganesh Son Of Late Shri Jwala Prasad., Resident Of Bhandaur Kalan, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 5. Satish Uraf Hemant Kumar Son Of Late Shri Jwala Prasad., Resident Of Bhandaur Kalan, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Jairam Son Of Shri Ghantoli, Resident Of Bhandaur Kalan, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Kumar Gupta, Dy.GA-cum-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/10/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Bharatpur, the instant appeal has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:43203] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-2550/2025] 2. By passing the order impugned, cognizance has been taken against the appellants for the offence under Section 323, 341 & 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant case is a case of pure civil dispute between the parties, but in order to give colour of criminal case by putting pressure upon the appellants, an F.I.R. was registered against the appellants by the respondent No.2, which was thoroughly investigated by the Police and the Final Report ‘Negative’ was submitted as no case was found by the Investigating Agency against the appellants. Counsel submits that cognizance has been taken against the appellants on the basis of the protest petition and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are overlooking the reasons stated in the FR hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record as well as the order impugned indicates that the F.I.R. was registered by the respondent No.2, wherein several allegations were levelled against the appellants, though after investigation, Police has submitted the Final Report ‘Negative’ against which a protest petition was submitted by the respondent No.2 against the appellants, wherein statements of several witnesses Udai Singh, Samandar Singh, Foran Singh, Jagdish & Rajesh were recorded and considering the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and looking to the nature of the allegations levelled against the appellants in their statements and [2025:RJ-JP:43203] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-2550/2025] in the F.I.R., the cognizance has been taken against the appellants for the above stated offences. 6. It is the settled proposition of law that at the stage of taking cognizance, only the prima facie case is required to be seen and the Court would not conduct any fishing and roving enquiry to find out the correctness of the allegations levelled against the accused persons. This Court finds no illegality in the order impugned passed by the Court below, which requires any interference of this Court. 7. This Court finds no merit and substance in this criminal appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /139