1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO.1122/2010 (Dunichand & Ors. Vs. State & Anr.) Date of Order : 06.08.2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. D.S. Dev, for the petitioners. Mr. Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In this misc. petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners are challenging the order dated 18.6.2010 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Annopgarh, District Sriganganagar in Criminal Revision Petition No.152/2009 whereby the revisional Court affirmed the order dated 11.11.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Anoopgarh whereby the learned Magistrate took the cognizance against the petitioners for committing offence under Section 379 I.P.C. After investigation, the police filed negative final report in the FIR filed against the petitioners. Thereafter protest petition was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Anoopgarh. In support of protest petition, the statement of AW-1 Chandra Pal, AW-2 Jaipal and AW-3 Manphool Singh were recorded by the trial Court and after considering the finding of 2 investigating officer given in the final report as well as the statement of witnesses recorded in support of the protest petition, learned Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioners for committing offence under Section 379 I.P.C. vide order dated 11.11.2009 and issued bailable warrant against the petitioners. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred a revision petition before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Anoopgarh District Sriganganagar. The revisional Court after considering relevant record and the fact that in the statement recorded by the trial Court upon protest petition, prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for committing offence under Section 379 I.P.C., dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 18.6.2010. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that at the time of taking cognizance, learned Magistrate was under obligation to give reasons for disagreement with the final report given by the police, so also, the learned Magistrate did not consider the fact that petitioners also filed FIR under Section 307 I.P.C. in which after investigation, challan has been filed by the police against the complainant party and present case is outcome of the said case. I have perused the order impugned and considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. In my opinion, learned Magistrate has given reasons for dis- 3 agreement of finding given by the investigating officer in the final report, so also, after taking into consideration, the statement of witnesses of complainant recorded in pursuance of the protest petition, thereafter took cognizance. The order passed by the Magistrate is perfectly in consonance with the provisions of law. The revisional Court has also elaborately discussed all the points taken by the petitioner including the argument of the petitioner that one accused Inder Mohan is a teacher and on the relevant date whether he was on duty or not. Learned trial Court as well as the revisional Court has considered the certificate produced by the petitioners. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere with the order of taking cognizance as well as the order of revisional Court. Therefore, no case is made out for interference by this Court while exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Hence, this misc. petition is dismissed. However, the petitioners will be at liberty to raise their all grounds at the time of framing charge by the trial Court and trial Court shall consider the arguments and grounds for the purpose of framing charge. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J arun