[2026:RJ-JP:10650] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 569/2020 1. Narbada Devi W/o Ganga Sahay, R/o Amala, Police Station Thanagaji, District Alwar, Raj. 2. Jayram S/o Ganga Sahay, R/o Amala, Police Station Thanagaji, District Alwar, Raj. 3. Dhanna Ram S/o Ganga Sahay, R/o Amala, Police Station Thanagaji, District Alwar, Raj. 4. Mukesh S/o Ganga Sahay, R/o Amala, Police Station Thanagaji, District Alwar, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP. 2. Ramgopal S/o Mool Chand, R/o Amala, Police Station Thanagaji, District Alwar, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakar, PP Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/03/2026 1. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioners. Even on the last occasion i.e. on 02.07.2020 and 23.07.2020, none has put appearance on behalf of the petitioners. This petition is lying pending before this Court since last more than 06 years. 2. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 28.02.2015 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Thanagaji, District Alwar in Criminal Case No.84/2015, by which the cognizance has been taken against the accused- [2026:RJ-JP:10650] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-569/2020] petitioners for the offence under Section 379 IPC and they have been summoned. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the accused-petitioners submitted a revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 22.11.2019 by upholding the order passed by the learned Magistrate. 4. Bare perusal of the grounds and contents of the instant petition indicate that the instant case is a case of civil nature and civil disputes are lying pending between the parties before the competent court of law, hence, under these circumstances, it is contended in the petition that the order of taking cognizance against the petitioners be be quashed. 5. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the impugned orders and record indicate that the allegations have been levelled against the petitioners that they have broken the locks of the farm gates and stolen the crops standing on the subject land, for which an FIR was registered against the petitioners and after investigation, police report was submitted and thereafter, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence under Section 379 IPC vide order dated 28.02.2015. This order has been further upheld by the Revisional Court vide order dated 22.11.2019. 7. It is settled proposition of law that at the time of taking cognizance, only prima facie case is required to be seen and the defence of the accused cannot be taken into count at initial stage. 8. Hence, under these circumstances, this Court finds no [2026:RJ-JP:10650] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-569/2020] infirmity in the orders impugned passed by both the Courts below. This Court does not find any merit in the instant petition. 9. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/4