1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.194/2005 Sultan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order ::::: February 13,2009 Present HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Harendra Singh for the petitioners Mr. K.S.Chandel, P.P. Mr. Yogendra Singh for respondent no.2. A complaint was lodged by respondent no.2 against the petitioners for commission of offence under Sections 147, 329, 436 and 149 IPC. The police after investigation submitted a negative final report. Thereupon the respondent no.2 filed a protest petition and examined three witnesses. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar having perused the record and the statements of the witnesses vide order dated 30.6.2004 took cognizance against the petitioners for offence under Sections 147, 379 and 436 IPC and summoned them through bailable warrants. Being aggrieved of this order, the petitioners have filed the instant petition. 2 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned P.P. and learned counsel for respondent no.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the police rightly submitted a final report treating the dispute to be a dispute of civil nature as the disputed land has already been sold to Sultan by Govinda and the petitioners were in possession of the same. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking cognizance. Learned P.P. as well as learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 have supported the order passed by the court below. The submitted record reveals that the land of Khasra Nos.447 and 448 was in possession of the respondent and as the petitioners wanted to have the possession that is why they went on the land and put fire in the Chhapper which was in the field. It is also well settled that for criminal offence ownership of the property is not to be looked into and what is to be looked into is as to who was in possession of the same at the relevant time. The statements of the witnesses 3 available on the record of the case reveal that a prima facie case is borne out from the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the witnesses were not examined because they will help them. In this regard suffice it to observe that whoever witness who was available to the complainant, he has examined them. At the stage of taking cognizance minor details cannot be looked into. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that while taking cognizance no opinion was expressed by the court below to disagree with the final negative report filed by the police. In this respect it is observed that when the statements of the witnesses have already been recorded there was no occasion for the court below to have assigned reasons for disagreeing with the reasons given in the final report. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that while taking cognizance the court below has not transgraced the authority vested in it. In such a situation, I am of the opinion that no interference is required to be called for by this 4 Court while exercising inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the misc. petition stands dismissed. Office is directed to return the record of the case immediately to the concerned trial court. (Bhanwaroo Khan),J. bairwa 5 S.B.Criminal Misc. Stay Application No.227/2005 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.194/2005 Sultan Singh & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order ::::: February 13,2009 Present HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Harendra Singh for the petitioners Mr. K.S.Chandel, P.P. Mr. Yogendra Singh for respondent no.2. Since the main petition has been dismissed, this stay application also stands dismissed. (Bhanwaroo Khan),J. bairwa