[2025:RJ-JP:46516] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6277/2017 1. Motilal S/o Chouthmal, 2. Chhogalal S/o Chouthmal All R/o Village Bagrukalan, Dhani Loharwada, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Complainant-Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through PP. 2. Rameshwar S/o Laxmi Narayan, age about 62 years, R/o Village Bagrukalan, Dhani Loharwada, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur. ----Accused-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kamwar Mr. Vaibhav Nirmal Mr. Lakshya Sharma Mr. Bharat Todi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Kapil Bhardar with Mr. Ayush Sharma & Mr. Yogesh Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 18/11/2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner to challenge the order dated 06.10.2017 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Criminal Revision No. 18/2017, whereby, the revision petition filed by the accused-respondents has been allowed and the matter has been remanded back to the learned Trial Court for hearing the matter afresh on the point of taking cognizance after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. It is stated that FIR No. [2025:RJ-JP:46516] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6277/2017] 170/2014 dated 24.05.2014 was lodged by the petitioner against the accused-respondents for committing offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC. After investigation, the police authorities filed negative FR before the trial Court below. 2. Feeling aggrieved, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the protest petition before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 17, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and after following the process vide order dated 08.05.2017, cognizance for offences under Section 420, 467, 468 IPC was taken. 3. It is submitted that the order dated 08.05.2017 was put to challenge by the accuse-respondents by way of filing a revision petition, which has been allowed by the Revisional Court by giving a finding that while taking cognizance, the accused- persons were not heard as well as the fact that the order passed by the Magistrate was vague and evasive as he did not disclose as to how, the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were made out in the instant case. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and ignored the fundamental principle that at the time of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is required to examine the contents of FIR as well as the material available on record and the defence of accused person cannot be taken into consideration. He submits that the order passed by the Magistrate is a speaking order wherein, there is total application of mind qua, the question as to whether, any cognizable offence is made out against the accused-respondent or not. Thus, under these circumstances, there was no occasion [2025:RJ-JP:46516] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6277/2017] whatsoever for the Revisional Court to quash the cognizance and remand back to the trial Court for passing a fresh order after giving opportunity of hearing to the accused-respondent. He further added that cognizance was taken on preliminary stage, therefore, there was no requirement whatsoever to hear the accused-respondents at that stage hence, the order passed by the Revisional Court is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the accused-respondent opposed the petition and submitted that after meticulously examining the material available on record including the fact that earlier, the allegations in FIR were duly investigated by the Investigating Officer and the negative FR was filed after completion of investigation before the Magistrate and therefore, even if any protest petition has been filed, it is settled proposition of law that the scope of cognizance is limited, yet, even then, the Magistrate is required to examine the material on record so as to come to the conclusion that prima facie offence is made out against the accused. Herein, in the instant case, no such discretion has been made by learned Magistrate, therefore, the order of cognizance has rightly been quashed by the Revisional Court and the matter has been remanded back for fresh hearing. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Foundation of facts is not disputed and it is admitted that after completion of the investigation, the police proposed the negative FR before the Magistrate. It is settled that at the stage of taking cognizance on protest petition filed against a negative final [2025:RJ-JP:46516] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6277/2017] report, it may not be mandatory for the Magistrate to afford an opportunity of hearing to the accused person. However, the absence of such a right of accused does not relieve the Magistrate of the duty to act judicially and with due application of mind. The Magistrate is under a legal obligation to record his satisfaction, based upon the material available in the case diary and other documents before him, that the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are prima facie made out. An order of cognizance cannot be passed in a casual or mechanical manner merely upon the protest petition, but must reflect consideration of whether the facts disclose the commission of a cognizable offence warranting further process of law. 8. In the present case, bare perusal of the cognizance order passed by the learned Trial Court does not reveal any analysis of the facts qua the essential ingredients of the alleged acquiescence. Under these circumstances, the Revisional Court has committed no jurisdictional error in remanding the matter to the learned Trial Court with direction to pass a fresh order on the point of cognizance. 9. In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order hence, the criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner is, hereby, dismissed. 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/63