1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER S.B.CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 522/2007 (Heera Lal and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) Date of Order : 14.08.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Vishal Sharma for the petitioners. Mr. J.P.S.Choudhary, P.P. Mr. Ravindra Acharya for the respondent NO.2. BY THE COURT:- By the instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21.5.2007 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Merta (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter) whereby the trial court took the cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC and Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act' hereinafter) and issued process. Aggrieved by the order impugned, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused 2 the order impugned. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that after thorough investigation, the police submitted negative final report. The trial court without considering the grounds mentioned in the negative final report submitted by the police took the cognizance of the offences and rejecting the final report. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Vs. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and Anr. 2005 Cr.L.R. (SC) 295 and decision of this Court in Hira Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2007 (1) CJ (Raj.) Cr., 36. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent NO.2 submits that at the stage of taking cognizance, it is the trial Magistrate to satisfy from the material placed before it as to whether there is ground to proceed against the accused or not and nothing more. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In Suresh Vs. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and Anr. (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Magistrate has not considered the report filed by the police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. judicially and without considering the grounds mentioned in the negative final report as also without accepting or rejecting the conclusion arrived at by the 3 police in the final report, the trial court took the cognizance of the offence. On these premises the order was set aside. In Hira Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (supra) this court held that it no where appears from the order of the trial Magistrate that the trial Magistrate either accepted the negative final report or rejected it and therefore, the order impugned was set aside. On careful perusal of the order impugned, it appears that the trial court on the basis of the statements of the complainant and two witnesses namely Prahlad Singh and Phoolchand took the cognizance of the offence and issued the process but in whole of the order impugned it no where appears that the trial court applied its judicial mind to the conclusion arrived at by the police or the grounds mentioned in the negative final report and therefore, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Vs. Mahadevappa Shivappa Danannava and Anr. (supra), the order impugned cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 21.5.2007. is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court to pass afresh order in accordance with law. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp