1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Asrar Ul Hasan & others Vs. State of Rajasthan SB CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1058/2010. Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. DATE OF ORDER: 2nd August, 2010. PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P. PATHAK Mr. Arun Sharma for the petitioners. Mrs.Rekha Madnani PP for the State. BY THE COURT:- By this petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the order dated 31.10.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) cum Judicial Magistrate, Khanpur in Criminal Regular Case No.475/2009 taking cognizance against the accused-petitioners for the offence under sections 147, 452, 323, 427/149 IPC in FIR No.195/2009 and that of the revisional court dated 7.5.2010 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioners has been dismissed. Briefly stated the facts for the disposal of the present petition are that charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners in the trial court for the aforesaid offence. The learned trial court finding that on the basis of material cognizance was required to be taken in the matter, took cognizance against the petitioners. Since the accused petitioners were on anticipatory bail under the order of 2 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jhalawar, they were summoned by bailable warrants to face the trial. The petitioners having felt aggrieved against the said order taking cognizance, preferred a revision petition which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar vide order dated 7.5.2010. The learned revisional court found that there were litigations of civil and criminal nature both pending between the parties. The revisional court further found that the allegation against the petitioners was that they entered in the house of the complainant, abused and gave beating and that aspect was not denied by the accused and the documents submitted before the court shows that there civil as well as criminal litigations are pending between the parties and it was not desirable to make comments in relation to the documents submitted before the investigating officer. The revisional court further found that, prima-facie, from the material if the courts are satisfied that a case is made out then the courts are competent to take cognizance. The contention of the learned counsel is that in fact false allegations were attributed in the report. There were several civil and criminal cases pending between the parties. It is also contended that previously the matter came up before this court in misc. petition which was disposed of with the direction to the investigating agency to take into consideration the documents and investigating agency has not taken into consideration those documents, therefore, the order of cognizance passed by the 3 Magistrate and the order of the revisional court up-holding the order of the Magistrate are liable to be set aside. I have considered the submissions and have also perused the impugned orders. The learned two courts below have concurrently found that prima-facie material was available on the file to take cognizance against the accused. The courts below have given reasons while passing order taking cognizance as well as rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioners, therefore, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel. The misc. petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this misc. petition is dismissed. (S.P. PATHAK),J BBLM