[2026:RJ-JP:15925] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3562/2020 Roopchand Jain S/o Late Fateh Lal Ranka, Aged About 61 Years, R/o H.no. 4847-48, Kundighar Bheru Ka Rasta, Sotiyon Ka Mohalla, Johri Bazar Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Rakh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 09.05.2019 passed by the court of the Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No. 23, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in FIR No. 197/2015 registered with the Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur by which the Final Report submitted by the Investigating Agency has been accepted. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioner before the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No. 10, Jaipur Metropolitan, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 21.03.2020. 3. Perusal of the documents available on record indicates that a complaint was filed by the complainant-petitioner against the accused person for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC with the allegations that the [2026:RJ-JP:15925] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3562/2020] cheque bearing No. 028911 drawn by Union Bank of India was stolen by the accused on 01.03.2015 and the same was presented by the accused in his bank but the petitioner has stopped the payment of the aforesaid on 25.02.2015. Counsel submits that the cheque in question was misused by the accused person and a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was submitted by him against the accused, which was thereafter sent to the concerned Police Station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.. An FIR No. 197/2015 was registered for the above stated offence but after investigation, Final Report (Negative) was submitted against which notices were issued to the complainant-petitioner and the complainant- petitioner submitted a protest petition and recorded his statements and the statements of other witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order dated 09.05.2019 rejected the protest petition submitted by the petitioner and accepted the FR. Further, at the time of arguments, neither the complainant nor his counsel were appearing before the court below, so after taking into count of their absence and the material available on record, the Final report was accepted and the protest petition was rejected in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harishchandra Prasad Mani and Ors. V/s State of Jharkhand and Anr. reported in (2007) 15 SCC 494. 4. Considering the proposition of law that in case, sufficient prima facie evidence is not available against the accused, then cognizance is not required to be taken. 5. Considering all the above factual aspects of the matter, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate was rightly [2026:RJ-JP:15925] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3562/2020] upheld by the Revisional Court, hence this Court finds no error in the judgments passed by both the Courts below which require any interference of this Court. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that the instant petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/36