[2025:RJ-JP:44617] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1825/2019 Nighat Nijami D/o Nawab Ali, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of - 9A, Shrirampura Colony, Infront Of Chief Minister Residence, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Mukarram Ali Son Of Khairati Khan, Resident Of House No. 595/1, Behind Akbari Maszid, Amer, Jaipur, Police Station Amer, At Present Resident Of Old Ward No 4/53, New Ward No. 13/77, Kunda, Baksa Ka Kund, Nangal Road, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1824/2019 Farhat Nijami D/o Nawab Ali, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of - 9A, Shrirampura Colony, Infront Of Chief Minister Residence, Civil Lines, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Mukarram Ali Son Of Khairati Khan, Resident Of House No. 595/1, Behind Akbari Maszid, Amer, Jaipur, Police Station Amer, Jaipur, At Present Resident Of Old Ward No 4/53, New Ward No. 13/77, Kunda, Baksa Ka Kund, Nangal Road, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Sharma for Mr. Madhu Sudan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/11/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:44617] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1825/2019] 1. Petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.11.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. 35, Jaipur Metro, Amer whereby, cognizance under Section 500 IPC has been taken against the petitioners. They have also challenged order dated 10.12.2018 passed by Revisional Court whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and order of the learned Trial Court regarding cognizance has been confirmed. It is stated that the petitioners were daughter-in-law of the complainant and they lodged one FIR under Section 498A & 406 of IPC against the complainant along with other persons wherein certain specific allegations were leveled against the complainant reflecting upon the character and conduct of the complainant. However, the complainant was discharged by the Competent Court vide order dated 18.07.2009, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner before this Court and the petition was dismissed on 29.03.2013. Thereafter, the petitioners also approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court however, no interference was made and ultimately, the result was that the complainant is to be discharged in the matter under Section 498A & 406 IPC. 2. Thereafter, with the allegations of causing defamation, one criminal complaint was filed by the complainant against the petitioners under Section 499 and 500 IPC. The trial Court vide order dated 31.01.2017 took cognizance against the petitioners, which was challenged by he petitioners by way of revision petitions and the same have also been dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2018. [2025:RJ-JP:44617] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1825/2019] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the learned Courts below have utterly failed to appreciate that mere lodging of a criminal case for pursuing the legal remedies available to daughters in law and failure to prove the same would not come within the ambit of defamation defined under Section 499 IPC. Therefore, without discussing the ingredients of defamation defined in IPC, the learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioners and such jurisdictional error was although pointed out by the petitioner before the Revisional Court yet, no interference was made and revision petition has wrongly been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed no mistake in taking cognizance looking to the allegations leveled in the complaint and the available material on record and the order passed by the Revisional Court has also does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or illegality. 5. I have perused the record and heard submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 6. It is settled proposition of law that at the time of taking cognizance, the learned Trial Court is required to examine the contents of the complaint along with the documents/material placed on record before the Magistrate and in case, the material available before the Magistrate is sufficient to draw an inference that the cognizable office has been prima facie made out, cognizance can be taken for the offence that appears to have been committed from the material. In this case also, bare perusal of the cognizance order clearly reveals that there is proper application of [2025:RJ-JP:44617] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1825/2019] mind by the learned Magistrate and after properly examining the contents of complaint along with the essential ingredients of defamation, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner. The Revisional Court has also given reasoned and sound finding while deciding the revision petition and has rightly came to the conclusion that the learned Court below has committed no jurisdictional error in taking cognizance against the petitioners. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has utterly failed to point out any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders before the learned Courts below hence, the present criminal misc. petitions are hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J NEERU/65-66