HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4556/2025 Manohar Lal Son of Shri Ishwar Das, Aged About 56 Years, R/o House No 1 /772 Sector No. 1, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Victim, R/o ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1090/2025 1. Laxman Das Son of Shri Ishwar Das, aged about 50 Years, R/o House No. 1/803, Sector No. 1, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Piyush @ Pankaj Son of Shri Manohar Lal, aged about 18 Years, R/o House No. 1/772, Sector No. 1, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Victim, R/o ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratan Kumar Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia-PP Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/11/2025 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both petitions, hence with the consent of the counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and both petitions are being decided by this common order. (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4556/2025] 2. By way of filing these petitions, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act, 2012) No.1, Jaipur Metro-I, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner-Manohar Lal under Sections 341, 323, 354-D, 504 and 509 IPC and Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act while cognizance has been taken against Lakshman Das and Piyush under Sections 341, 323 and 504 IPC. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that an FIR was registered by the mother of the victim on 16.07.2021 with the Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur City (East) wherein it was alleged that on 14.07.2021 and 15.07.2021, the accused committed the incident not only punishable under the above stated offences but also for the allegation pertaining to POCSO Act. Counsel submits that after registration of the aforesaid FIR, the matter was thoroughly examined by the Investigating Agency and even a CCTV footage from the place of occurrence was collected and stored in a pendrive and extract of the same was also stored from the said pendrive. Counsel for the petitioners submits that in the extract of the pendrive, i.e. electronic evidence, no such incident for the offences punishable under the POCSO Act has been narrated. Therefore, the oral allegations levelled against the petitioners are not corroborated by the electronic evidence. Counsel submits that after through investigation in the matter, the police submitted Final Report (Negative), against which protest petition was filed by the complainant and the same was accepted and FR submitted by the Police was rejected and now the cognizance has been taken against both the petitioners-Manohar Lal,Lakshman and Piyush for (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4556/2025] the above stated offences. Counsel submits that while passing the order of taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate has not taken note of the electronic evidence which was available on record and in a cursory manner, the impugned order has been passed and cognizance has taken against the petitioner Manohar Singh for the offence under Section 354-D, 341, 323, 504 and 509 IPC and Section 11/12 of the POCSO Act. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Court below is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submit that prima faice case is made out against the accused for taking cognizance against them for the above stated offences as the victim has specifically levelled the allegations of the offence punishable under section 11/12 of the POCSO Act against the accused Manohar Lal. Counsel submits that considering all these material aspect of the matter, cognizance has rightly been taken against the accused persons for the above stated offences. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that at the stage of taking cognizance and summoning the accused, the Court has to see the prima facie case and the Court is not required to consider the defence version of the accused, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu Gupta Vs. Deepak Gupta, reported in 2015(3) SCC 424. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4556/2025] hereinabove, the petitions submitted by the petitioners are liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that for the incidents which have occurred on two different dates i.e. 14.07.2021 and 15.07.2021 the impugned FIR was registered with the Police Station Malviya Nagar, Jaipur against the accused persons. During the course of investigation, the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence was collected and stored in a pendrive and the extract of the same has been noted in the memo of the inspection of the aforesaid pendrive. It has been argued that the contents of the pendrive do not reveal that any incident pertaining to POSCO Act has been captured in the pendrive, though the other incident for the other offence under IPC has been captured by the CCTV camera. It has also been argued that this fact has not been appreciated by the learned Magistrate and the impugned order has been passed in a cursory manner and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners. This fact is not in dispute that at the stage of taking cognizance, only prima facie case is required to be seen and defence so put by the accused is not required to be seen at this stage. The accused has no locus standi to raise his arguments at this stage as it has held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sonu Gupta (Supra) but at the same time, the Hon’ble Apex Court in a number of the cases such as Lalankumar Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2022 SCC Online 1383, M/s. JM Laboratories and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., (Criminal Appeal No. 487/2025) decided on 30.01.2025 (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4556/2025] and Inox Air Products Limited Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2025 INSC 128, has held that the order of taking cognizance and summoning the accused reflect the non- application of mind on the part of the Magistrate. But in the instant case it appears that before passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate has not gone through the entire record and straightaway the impugned order has been passed in a cursory manner. Hence, the same is not tenable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed and set aside. 7. The matter is remitted to the learned Magistrate to pass a reasoned and speaking order afresh, after due application of judicial mind, to proceed further in the matter, ensuring that the ingredients of the offence for which cognizance is required to be taken are present. It is made clear that meticulous examination is not required to be done at this stage of taking cognizance and if the Magistrate comes to the conclusion that prima facie case is made out against the accused persons i.e. petitioners, he would be at liberty to proceed against them in accordance with law without considering their defence and without granting them the opportunity of hearing as the accused has no locus standi and is not entitled to be heard in the question whether the process should be issued against him or not. 8. Accordingly, both criminal misc. petitions stand disposed of. Stay applications and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/20-21