[2026:RJ-JP:29253] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5987/2022 CNR: RJHC020529482022 | URN: CRLMP / 10205U / 2022 Jitendra S/o Shri Ramesh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Shergarh, Police Station Bayana, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Virah Singh, R/o Village Shergarh, Police Station Bayana, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma and Mr. Ankit Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Amit Jindal with Mrs. Deepti Jindal and Ms. Reena Goyal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/07/2026 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, Bharatpur, by which the application submitted by the complainant-respondent unde Section 190 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner along with co-accused persons for the [2026:RJ-JP:29253] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-5987/2022] offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 read with Section 149 IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, a revision petition was submitted before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Bayana, Bharatpur, however, the same was rejected vide order dated 25.04.2022 and the order passed by the learned Magistrate has been upheld. 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the both impugned orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after thorough investigation in the instant matter from all the four corners, the Investigating Agency submitted charge-sheet confined to the accused persons namely Ramesh Chand, Kamal Singh, Hakim Singh and Devendra Singh. Counsel submits that since the petitioner was not involved in the instant matter, that is why, he has not been charge-sheeted, but the complainant respondent submitted an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioner along with other co- accused persons for the above stated offences. Counsel submits that without there being any concrete evidence against the petitioner and in-spite of having so many contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, the learned Magistrate overlooking the above material aspect of the matter, has taken cognizance against the petitioner along with co-accused persons for the above stated offences including the offence punishable under Section 149 IPC. Counsel submits that the Magistrate was not having any [2026:RJ-JP:29253] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-5987/2022] power to take cognizance under Section 149 IPC unless charge- sheet is submitted for the above offence. 5. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Girish Radhakrishnan Varde reported in (2014) 3 SCC 659. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the Court below are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed and set-aside. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant oppose the prayer and submit that around five persons including Keshav, Anguri, Kartar Singh, Seema and Om Prakash have sustained injuries and they are injured witnesses of the alleged incident. Counsels further submits that name of the petitioner was also mentioned in the statements of these witnesses as one of the assailants. When charge-sheet was not submitted against him along with co- accused persons, an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. was submitted for taking cognizance against the petitioner along with co-accused persons for the above-said offences. Counsel submits that on the basis of the material available on the record, the cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 149 IPC was also taken, as the accused persons were five in number. Counsels further submit that the orders passed by the Court below are just and cogent and do not require any interference of this Court and the instant petition is liable to be rejected. 7. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. [2026:RJ-JP:29253] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-5987/2022] 8. Perusal of the record, allegations levelled in the FIR and the statements of the injured witnesses reveal that the name of the petitioner was also mentioned as one of the assailants along with other co-accused persons. When no charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner along with co-accused persons, the complainant approached the Court below by way of filing an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the petitioner as well. The said application has been allowed and cognizance has been taken against him also for the above stated offences. 9. This Court finds no merit and substance in the arguments of counsel for the petitioner that there are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses with regard to involvement and presence of the petitioner on the place of occurrence. 10. It is settled proposition of law that at the time of taking cognizance only prima facie case is required to be seen. A meticulous examination of the statements of the witnesses and appreciation of their evidence are not permissible at this initial stage of taking cognizance. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court finding a prima facie case against the petitioner, a cognizance order has been passed against him along with other co-accused persons, including the offence punishable under Section 149 IPC, as the number of assailants are five in number. The orders passed by the Courts below are just and cogent and do not warrant any interference by this Court. [2026:RJ-JP:29253] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-5987/2022] 12. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 13. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that whatever has been observed by this Court shall not be construed as an opinion of this Court on the merits of the matter. 14. The Trial Court is directed to decide the matter on the basis of the evidence available on the record, without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. 15. Record be sent back. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/105