[2026:RJ-JP:15387] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6863/2019 Rakesh S/o Nathi Lal R/o Village Kuhawani, Police Station Kanchanpur, Tehsil Badi, District Dholpur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP. 2. Smt. Shashi W/o Mukesh, D/o Bahori Lal R/o Madina Colony, Police Station Kotwali, District Dholpur, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP with Ms. Neha Goyal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant misc. petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 11.08.2016, passed by the Court of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 341 and 354 IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioner before the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Case, Dhoplur, however, the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 05.08.2019. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR was registered against the petitioner by the complainant-respondent No.2 wherein after investigation, the police did not find any allegations to be correct and true and therefore, Final Report (Negative) was [2026:RJ-JP:15387] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6863/2019] submitted, against which a protest petition was filed by the complainant respondent and the same has been accepted and the Final Report (Negative) has been rejected. Hence, the impugned order has been passed and cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the above stated offence. Counsel submits that in fact no such incident has occurred and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 11.08.2016 reveals that the allegations of outraging the modesty of a woman have been levelled by the complainant-respondent against the petitioner. On the basis of the statements recorded during the course of inquiry under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the above stated offences. 7. It is the settled proposition of law that at the time of taking cognizance, only prima facie case is required to be seen and in the instant case, the prima facie case is there to proceed against the petitioner. The defence of the accused and the meticulous examination of the evidence cannot be appreciated at the initial stage of taking cognizance. Certainly, meticulous examination of evidence and defence of the accused would be looked into at the appropriate stage of the trial before the Trial Court. [2026:RJ-JP:15387] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6863/2019] 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Trial Court as well as the Revisional Court have not committed any error which require any interference of this Court. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition stands dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/21