[2026:RJ-JP:16050] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.3720/2016 Sampat Ram Sharma Son of Shri Girraj Prasad, Resident of town Bayana, Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent 2. Smt. Geeta Wife of Shri Kailash, Resident of Barpada, Hindaun City, Police Station District Karauli (Raj.) Hindaun city, 3. 3. Smt. Sita Wife of Shri Mahesh, Resident of Barpada, Hindaun City, Police Station Hindaun city, District Karauli (Raj.) ----Complainant/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakshay K. Sharma for Mr. Ali Mohd. Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakar, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/04/2026 1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 06.08.2011 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, Bharatpur by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1, Bayana District Bharatpur, however, the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 13.05.2016. [2026:RJ-JP:16050] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3720/2016] 2. Aggrieved by both the aforesaid impugned orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR No.219/2004 was registered against the petitioner at the Police Station Bayana, which resulted in Final Report (Negative), as the role of the petitioner in the alleged offence was not found to be proved and the Investigating Agency was of the view that the instant matter pertains to a civil dispute, but on the basis of the protest petition filed by the complainant-respondent, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the above stated offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever and without any basis, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner for the above stated offences, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.08.2011, on the basis of the protest petition and the evidence of the complaint and other witnesses, has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC by finding a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner and the petitioner has been summoned through summons. [2026:RJ-JP:16050] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3720/2016] 8. It is a settled proposition of law that at the time of taking cognizance only prima facie case is required to be seen. Any meticulous examination and appreciation of evidence is not required to be done at this initial stage. Even the defence of the accused cannot be looked into at this stage. 9. Hence, this Court finds no error in the order impugned passed by both the Courts, which warrants any interference of this Court. 10. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition is liable to be and is hereby rejected. It is expected from the Trial Court, in case the trial is still pending, to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending case expeditiously, as early as possible, without entertaining any unnecessary or unwarranted requests for adjournment made by either side. 11. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/46