1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.128/2007 Suraj Mal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order ::::: February 16,2009 Present HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Anshuman Saxena for the petitioner Mr. K.S.Chandel, P.P. A written report was lodged by Anju Lata respondent no.2 at police station Pragpura on basis of which a case under Section 498 IPC was registered and after investigation the police submitted a negative final report in the court of Addl. Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate Kotputali. Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition and examined herself and three witnesses namely Vishambher, Roshan Lal and Murari Lal. The trial Magistrate after going through the statements of the complainant and her witnesses by the order dated 12.3.2004 took cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC. An unsuccessful revision filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Addl. 2 Sessions Judge, Kotputali vide order dated 4.9.2006. Feeling aggrieved of the orders passed by the courts below the petitioner has preferred the instant misc. petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and P.P. and perused the impugned orders. A perusal of the material and evidence available on record it reveals that previously also a complaint under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC was lodged by respondent no.2 against Dharampal and Suraj Mal which came to be decided by the Judicial Magistrate Virat Nagar by judgment dated 21.4.2005 whereby both the accused were acquitted of the charges levelled. It seems that there was a compromise between th parties in the ligitation pending before the Family Court but lateron as per the version of respondent no.2 when her husband started treating her with cruelty, the present FIR was lodged which resulted in negative final report by the police but the statements of respondent no.2 and the witnesses clearly reveal that prima facie a case is made out against the petitioner. At this stage minute details of the evidence cannot be gone into. The trial Magistrate after perusing the the material and evidence available on record if has taken 3 cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sections 323 and 498-A IPC it cannot be said that the trial Magistrate has abused the process of law or that the order impugned is against the ends of justice. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that no interference is required to be called for by this Court in the orders passed by the courts below in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, the misc. petition stands dismissed. (Bhanwaroo Khan),J. bairwa