AJAIPAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 21.6.2007 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar took cognizance against the petitioner but at the time of taking cognizance, the reasons given by the Investigating Officer for negative report were not considered and in very casual manner, the cognizance order has been passed.

(3.) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the order impugned, I am of the opinion, that at the time of passing order for taking cognizance against the petitioner, the basic requirement is to consider the reasons upon which negative report is submitted by the Investigating Officer so also to give reasons for disagreement with the ground given by the Investigating Officer for filing F.R. but in this case, reasons for disagreement have not been given by the trial Court at the time of taking cognizance.