HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 668/2025 1. Babulal Jat S/o Shri Ramchandra Jat, R/o Village Harirampura, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. 2. Mool Chand Jat S/o Shri Ramchandra Jat, R/o Village Harirampura, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. 3. Ramprasad Jat S/o Shri Ramchandra Jat, R/o Village Harirampura, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P 2. Nanag Ram S/o Late Shri Ramnarayan, R/o Village Mahapura, Tehsil- Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijendra Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta-PP Mr. Kanhiya Lal Choudhary Mr. Dharmendra Joshi Mr. Pankaj Seth Mr. Abhishek Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-II by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioners against the impugned order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate No.11, Jaipur Metropolitan-II has been rejected. 2. By passing the order dated 24.04.2023, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences (2 of 3) [CRLMP-668/2025] under Sections 420, 467,468, 471 and 120-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a bare perusal of the entire complaint/FIR and the statements/evidence on record reveals that no case is made out against the petitioners for taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences. Counsel further submits that there is a contradiction in the statements of the witnesses of the other side. Counsel also submits that the complainant-party is not sure about the exact nature of allegation against the petitioners. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that at the stage of cognizance, only prima facie case is required to be seen. On the finding of a prima facie case against the petitioners, the trial Court has rightly taken the cognizance against them, hence the revision petition submitted by the petitioners against the aforesaid impugned order, has rightly been rejected. Thus interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. A perusal of the material available on record as well as the orders passed by the Courts below reveals that for the commission of cognizable offence, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. 7. It is settled proposition of law that at the stage of taking cognizance, this Court is not supposed to make a roving/fishing inquiry against the petitioners. The exercise of finding out the (3 of 3) [CRLMP-668/2025] truth behind the allegations, can be done by the Trial court at the appropriate stage of trial and not at the stage of taking cognizance. The orders passed by the Courts below are just and proper which require no interference of this Court. Hence, the criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/79