[2026:RJ-JP:15057] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2798/2021 Harpal Singh S/o Shri Satnam Singh, (M.D Satnam Motocorp Pvt. Ltd.) Registered Office 36, Jawahar Colony, Main Tonk Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor. 2. Kinshuk Sharma S/o Shri Shivsaran Sharma, R/o Alwar Kothi, 01, Pradhan Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, (Ra- jasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI Order 1. Arguments Concluded On: 08.04.2026 2. Order Reserved On: 08.04.2026 3. Full Order/Operative Part Pronounced: Full Order 4. Pronounced On: 18.04.2026 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the impugned order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby the criminal revision preferred by the respondent has been allowed and the cognizance order dated 18.07.2018 passed by the learned Magistrate for the offence under Section 500 IPC has been set aside. [2026:RJ-JP:15057] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-2798/2021] 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a criminal complaint against the respondent alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 500 IPC. The learned Magistrate, after recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of Cr.P.C. and upon consideration of the material available on record, took cognizance against the respondent vide order dated 18.07.2018. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of cognizance, the respondent preferred a criminal revision before the learned Revisional Court. The learned Revisional Court, vide impugned order dated 05.04.2019, allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of cognizance passed by the learned Magistrate. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Revisional Court has grossly erred in law while passing the impugned order, as it has exceeded its jurisdiction by entering into appreciation of evidence at the stage of cognizance. It is contended that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out and not, to conduct a detailed analysis of the evidence. 5. It is further submitted that the learned Revisional Court has virtually conducted a mini trial by examining the merits of the case and recording the findings touching upon the culpability of the respondent, which is impermissible in law. The impugned order is thus arbitrary, perverse and contrary to settle legal principles. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned order and submits that no offence under Section 500 IPC is made out from the material available on record [2026:RJ-JP:15057] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-2798/2021] and the learned Revisional Court has rightly set aside the order dated 18.07.2018. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well settled. The inherent powers of this Court are to be exercised sparingly and with great caution, only to prevent abuse of the process of law or to secure the ends of justice. This Court does not sit as a court of appeal over the orders passed by the Courts below. 9. It is equally well settled that at the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is required to examine whether a prima facie case is made out on the basis of the material available on record. However, such satisfaction must be based on proper application of mind and the essential ingredients of the alleged offence must be disclosed from the complaint and the material produced. In the case of “Nupur Talwar v. CBI, Delhi and Another” reported in (2012) 2 SCC 188 Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 17 of the judgment held as under: “17. The taking of cognizance means the point in time when a court or a Magistrate takes judi- cial notice of an offence with a view to initiating proceedings in respect of such offence which ap- pears to have been committed. At the stage of taking of cognizance of offence, the court has only to see whether prima facie there are rea- sons for issuing the process and whether the in- gredients of the offence are there on record.” 10. In the present case, the learned Revisional Court has examined the material available on record and has come to a categorical finding that the basic ingredients constituting an [2026:RJ-JP:15057] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-2798/2021] offence under Section 500 IPC are not made out. The learned Revisional Court has not conducted a roving enquiry or a detailed appreciation of evidence as alleged by the petitioner, but has confined itself to examining the legality, propriety and correctness of the order of cognizance. 11. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned Revisional Court has exercised its jurisdiction within the parameters prescribed under law. It is within the competence of the learned Revisional Court to set aside an order of cognizance, where the same is found to be unsustainable in law or where the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence. In the case of “Chandra Babu Alias Moses Vs State Through Inspector of Police & Ors.” reported in (2015) 8 SCC 774, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 11 of the judgment held as under: “11................................It is well settled in law that inherent as well as revisional jurisdiction should be exercised cautiously. Normally, a revisional jurisdiction should be exercised on a question of law. However, when factual appreciation is involved, then it must find place in the class of cases resulting in a perverse finding. Basically, the power is required to be exercised so that justice is done and there is no abuse of power by the Court. (See Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander [(2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687:(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986])” 12. The contention of the petitioner that the learned Revisional Court has conducted a mini trial is devoid of merit. The learned Revisional Court has merely scrutinized whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are made out from the material on record, which is well within its jurisdiction. 13. This Court finds that the order passed by the learned Revisional Court is reasoned, well-founded and does not suffer [2026:RJ-JP:15057] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-2798/2021] from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. Consequently, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is devoid of any merit and substance and, is hereby, dismissed. The impugned order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan is upheld. 15. All pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J Garima/61(R)-