Dismissed

Ramgopal Son of Late Shri Jwala Prasad. v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC28 Oct 2025CRLAS/2550/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against cognizance under IPC Sections 323, 341, 506 and SC/ST Act Section 3(1)(x) taken on a protest petition despite a negative final report. The High Court held that only a prima facie case is examined at the cognizance stage and found no illegality in the order below.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ramgopal Son of Late Shri Jwala Prasad. Vs State of… — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:43203]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2550/2025

¶4

Ramgopal Son Of Late Shri Jwala Prasad., Resident Of Bhandaur Kalan, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶5

Devo @ Surendra Son Of Late Shri Jwala Prasad., Resident Of Bhandaur Kalan, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶6

Chandrabhan @ Radharaman Sharma Son Of Late Shri Jwala Prasad., Resident Of Bhandaur Kalan, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶7

Ganesh Son Of Late Shri Jwala Prasad., Resident Of Bhandaur Kalan, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶8

Satish Uraf Hemant Kumar Son Of Late Shri Jwala Prasad., Resident Of Bhandaur Kalan, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶12

Jairam Son Of Shri Ghantoli, Resident Of Bhandaur Kalan, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Appellant(s)	: Mr.Mukesh Kumar Saini
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Amit Kumar Gupta,Dy.GA-cum-PP

¶15

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶16

Order

¶17

28/10/2025

¶18

Aggrieved by the order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Bharatpur, the instant appeal has been preferred.

[2025:RJ-JP:43203]

[CRLAS-2550/2025]

(2 of 3)

By passing the order impugned, cognizance has been taken against the appellants for the offence under Section 323, 341 & 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the instant case is a case of pure civil dispute between the parties, but in order to give colour of criminal case by putting pressure upon the appellants, an F.I.R. was registered against the appellants by the respondent No.2, which was thoroughly investigated by the Police and the Final Report ‘Negative’ was submitted as no case was found by the Investigating Agency against the appellants. Counsel submits that cognizance has been taken against the appellants on the basis of the protest petition and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. are overlooking the reasons stated in the FR hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶24

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record as well as the order impugned indicates that the F.I.R. was registered by the respondent No.2, wherein several allegations were levelled against the appellants, though after investigation, Police has submitted the Final Report ‘Negative’ against which a protest petition was submitted by the respondent No.2 against the appellants, wherein statements of several witnesses Udai Singh, Samandar Singh, Foran Singh, Jagdish & Rajesh were recorded and considering the statements of the aforesaid witnesses and looking to the nature of the allegations levelled against the appellants in their statements and

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:43203]

[CRLAS-2550/2025]

in the F.I.R., the cognizance has been taken against the appellants for the above stated offences.

¶29

It is the settled proposition of law that at the stage of taking cognizance, only the prima facie case is required to be seen and the Court would not conduct any fishing and roving enquiry to find out the correctness of the allegations levelled against the accused persons. This Court finds no illegality in the order impugned passed by the Court below, which requires any interference of this Court.

¶30

This Court finds no merit and substance in this criminal appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby rejected.

¶31

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶32

Aayush Sharma /139

Ramgopal Son of Late Shri Jwala Prasad. v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ramgopal Son of Late Shri Jwala Prasad. v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdish S/O Ramnath Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaluram @ Sunil @ Chhati Son of Shri Nandkishor Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Sarraf Son of Nanagram Sarraf Vs Girdhari Lal Kumawat Son of Kanaram

Amratlal S/O Shri Buddhram Vs State of Rajasthan

Gulabchand S/O Omprakash, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhuramal Ujjaniya S/O Late Sh. Benaram Ujjaniya Vs State of Rajasthan