1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. ORDER Smt. Madhu Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. SB CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.295/2005. Under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. DATE OF ORDER: 15th July, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini for the petitioner. Mrs.Nirmala Sharma PP for the State. Ms. Madhu Meena for the respondents. BY THE COURT: This revision petition has been filed under Section 397 read with section 401 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 25th January, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Hindaun city District Karauli in Criminal Revision No.57/2003 by which the learned revisional court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order dated 16th June, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sri Mahavirji District Karauli in Criminal CaseNo.186/2003 by which cognizance has been taken against the accused non-petitioner for the offence under sections 148, 323, 324 and 149 IPC. The brief facts, for the disposal of this revision petition, are that in the parcha bayan of Smt. Madhu Devi recorded in the hospital at Gangapurcity, it was alleged that the accused 2 respondents came with deadly weapons and Ram Dayal inflicted a Dharia blow on her person. A first information report being No.85/2001 was registered under sections 147, 323 and 324 IPC. After investigation, a final report in the matter was submitted and on filing a protest petition before the learned Magistrate and on his recording statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C. and the statements of the witnesses Phool Chand, Ramdayal, Girraj, Mukesh Kumar and Raghuveer under Section 202 Cr.P.C., cognizance was taken on 16.6.2003 against the accused respondents for the offence under sections 148, 323, 324 and 149 IPC. The order was challenged before the revisional court and the revisional court allowed the revision petition vide order dated 25.1.2005 and set aside the order taking cognizance dated 16.6.2003. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revisional court has not properly appreciated the evidence. The order taking cognizance was legal, just and proper and also contended that at the time of taking cognizance, the courts are not required to go deep into the matter. On the other hand, it has been submitted that the police after investigation found that there was false implication of the accused-respondents. It is contended that the alleged injuries were simple in nature. The medical evidence did not corroborate the manner in which it is alleged that the accused-respondents 3 inflicted injuries to the complainant party. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the impugned orders of the learned courts below and the entire material available on record. It appears from the material available on record that on the basis of the parcha bayan, a case was registered and police after investigation submitted a final report in the matter. Thereafter, on filing a protest petition and recording some statements, cognizance was taken. The order taking cognizance was challenged before the revisional court and the revisional court found that the complainant party lodged the report for the reason that the accused party had already lodged a complaint against the complainant party. It was also found that the true facts in relation to the incident were with held. It was also found that there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, therefore, the revisional court set aside the order taking cognizance against the accused-respondents. It is correct that normally the courts are not required to minutely discuss the evidence in detail. The courts are required to examine the matter that a prima facie case is made out or not. In the instant case, the police filed final report. This aspect of the matter along with the nature of injuries and time of incident and litigation between the parties was also taken into consideration by the learned revisional court. The learned revisional court has assigned reasons while setting aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It does 4 not appear that the learned revisional court has exercised the jurisdiction improperly or illegally. In view of the fore-going discussion, I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK,J) bblm