Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S H.Ganga Ram vs State And Anr on 17 June, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:26791]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1163/2014

 Lakshita Marketing, (a partnership firm) though its partner
 Deepesh solanki S/o Ganesh Solanki R/o Opp. Mahila Mandal
 school, Kuchilpura, Bikaner (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
 1. State Of Rajasthan
 2. Naryan Vyas S/o Laxman Vyas (Brahmin) R/o Behind Braham
 Sagar, Bangla Nagar, Bikaner.
                                                                  ----Respondent
                                Connected With
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1164/2014
 Lakshita Marketing, (a partnership firm) though its partner
 Deepesh solanki S/o Ganesh Solanki R/o Opp. Mahila Mandal
 school, Kuchilpura, Bikaner (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
 1. State Of Rajasthan
 2. Naryan Vyas S/o Laxman Vyas (Brahmin) R/o Behind Braham
 Sagar, Bangla Nagar, Bikaner.
                                                                  ----Respondent
            S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1165/2014
 M/s H. Gangara, Singhi (proprietorship firm) through it s
 proprietor Ajay Dembla S/o Lt. Shri Niranjan Dembla R/o KEM
 Rd. Bikaner (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
 1. State Of Rajasthan
 2. Naryan Vyas S/o Laxman Vyas (Brahmin) R/o Behind Braham
 Sagar, Bangla Nagar, Bikaner.
                                                                  ----Respondent


 For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Harshvardhan
 For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA




                      (Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:06:11 PM)
    [2025:RJ-JD:26791]                    (2 of 6)                        [CRLR-1163/2014]


                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                         Order

   ORDER RESERVED ON                          :::                     13/05/2025
   ORDER PRONOUNCED ON                        :::                     17/06/2025
REPORTABLE
   BY THE COURT :-

1. These three revision petitions have been filed on behalf of

the petitioner, M/s Lakshmi Marketing & M/s H. Gangara, Singhi

assailing the common judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed in

Criminal Revision Nos.290/2013, 291/20213 & 09/2014 by the

learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner, in the exercise of revisional

jurisdiction, whereby the order taking cognizance dated

22.03.2013 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (NI

Act) No.1, Bikaner in three separate complaint Nos.260/2013,

261/2013 & 262/2013 were quashed and set aside.

2. With the consent of learned counsel for both parties, all

three matters--being factually and legally similar--were heard

together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the adjudication of

these petitions are as follows:

3.1. The petitioner, M/s Lakshmi Marketing & M/s H. Gangaram,

being the complainants in all three criminal complaints,

instituted a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that the accused-respondent

Narayan Vyas issued cheques which were dishonoured by the

bank upon presentation, with the endorsement indicating

"insufficient funds" or "exceeds arrangement." Upon dishonour of

[2025:RJ-JD:26791] (3 of 6) [CRLR-1163/2014]

the cheques, legal notices were duly issued and served upon the

accused, demanding payment of the cheque amount. Despite the

service of such notices and lapse of the statutory period, no

payment was made by the accused, compelling the complainant

to initiate proceedings under the NI Act.

3.2. The Learned Magistrate, after perusal of the complaints

and supporting documents--including the dishonoured cheques,

bank memos, legal notices, and postal receipts--formed a prima

facie opinion that the allegations disclosed a cognizable offence

under Section 138 of the NI Act. Accordingly, the Magistrate took

cognizance and ordered issuance of process against the accused.

3.3. These orders of cognizance were later challenged by the

accused-respondents in revision before the Learned Sessions

Judge, Bikaner. Vide impugned judgment dated 30.06.2014, the

learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision petitions and set

asided the order taking cognizance passed by the Trial

Magistrate.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully

examined the impugned revisional order as well as the record of

the case.

4.1. Before proceeding to analyze the legality of the revisional

court's findings, it is essential to reiterate the well-settled legal

position that taking cognizance of an offence merely implies the

formal application of judicial mind to the allegations made in the

complaint and supporting material for the purpose of proceeding

further in the matter. At this preliminary stage, the Court is not

[2025:RJ-JD:26791] (4 of 6) [CRLR-1163/2014]

required to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, nor

is it expected to undertake a detailed scrutiny of the evidence.

The probative value of defence material is irrelevant at this stage

and must be evaluated only at the appropriate stage of trial.

4.2 In the present case, the Learned Magistrate had perused

the complaints and supporting materials annexed thereto. The

documents indicated that cheques were issued by the accused-

respondents, which were dishonoured for insufficient funds.

Legal notices were duly issued and served, and no payment was

made within the statutory time frame. These prima facie facts

were sufficient to justify taking cognizance and issuing process.

However, the learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the revision

petitions, set aside the order taking cognizance primarily on the

grounds that:

• The amount involved was substantial;

• There was no specific mention in the complaints about the

exact date on which the loan or financial transaction took

place;

• The circumstances under which the amount was advanced

by the complainant to the accused were not clearly

explained.

Furthermore, the Revisional Court went on to examine

whether the cheques were issued in discharge of any legally

enforceable debt or liability. It concluded that the absence of

such specific averments cast doubt on the legality of the

transaction and thus found the complaints insufficient for the

[2025:RJ-JD:26791] (5 of 6) [CRLR-1163/2014]

purpose of taking cognizance.

4.3. This Court is of the view that, such a detailed examination

of the factual matrix and merits of the case was uncalled for at

this stage. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge

relate to matters which are essentially triable issues and ought

to be adjudicated only after the commencement of trial,

affording both parties the opportunity to lead evidence.

4.4. The complainants are entitled to explain, during the

course of trial, the circumstances under which the loan was

advanced and the cheques were issued. Similarly, the accused

will have full opportunity to cross-examine the complainants on

such aspects and to adduce evidence in defence, if so advised, to

prove that the cheques were not issued in discharge of any legal

liability.

4.5. By setting aside the order of cognizance at this threshold

stage, the Revisional Court has pre-empted a trial on merits and

exceeded the jurisdiction vested in it under the Criminal

Procedure Code. It is well-settled that at the stage of

cognizance, the court must only examine whether a prima facie

offence is made out--not whether the prosecution is ultimately

likely to succeed.

5. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the Learned

Sessions Judge, Bikaner, acted beyond the scope of revisional

jurisdiction by engaging in an unwarranted scrutiny of factual

aspects which are subject to trial and erroneously setting aside

[2025:RJ-JD:26791] (6 of 6) [CRLR-1163/2014]

well-reasoned orders of cognizance passed by the Magistrate.

6. In view of the above discussion, these revision petitions are

allowed. The impugned judgment dated 30.06.2014 passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Revision Petition

Nos.290/13, 291/13, and 09/14 are hereby quashed and set

aside.

6.1. Consequently, the order dated 22.03.2013 passed by the

learned Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process

against the accused-respondent in Criminal Case Nos. 260/2013,

261/2013 & 262/2013 are affirmed and restored. The Learned

Trial Court is directed to proceed further in accordance with law.

The record be sent back forthwith.

Caution: It is made clear that this Court has refrained from

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Any

observation made hereinabove is limited solely for the purpose

of justifiable disposal of the present revision petitions and shall

not prejudice the parties at any stage of the trial.

(FARJAND ALI),J 94-Mamta/-