CHATARA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Delay in filing the revision petition is, hereby, condoned.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.11.2005 passed by the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Sri Dungargarh, Bikaner, whereby the learned Magistrate has refused to take cognizance against the non-petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 219, 447, 427 and 120-B I.P.C.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the jurisdiction for taking cognizance is extremely limited one where the Court is concerned only with seeing whether prima facie case is made out or not? At the initial stage of taking cognizance, the Court is not permitted to go beyond the evidence produced by the prosecution. However, the learned Magistrate has erred in critically discussing the evidence while passing the impugned judgment. Secondly, the learned Magistrate has not discussed the statements of the complainant and statements of his witnesses recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Crimial P.C., respectively. Therefore, the learned Magistrate has ignored the evidence which was readily available before her.