KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA,J. - (1.) Present petition has been filed to assail the order dated 2.5.2017 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Dausa, whereby it took cognizance for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC. It is further prayed that the order dated 19.7.2018 passed by the revisional court below whereby the order of cognizance was affirmed, be also set aside.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset has relied upon the judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Kanhaiyalal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 2011(2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1523 to contend that the court below while taking cognizance of offences has not given reasons to differ with the report of Investigating Officer.
(3.) Para-2 of the judgment in Kanhaiyalal and Anr. (supra) reads as under:- "2. Assailing the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that before proceeding to take cognizance on the final report submitted by the Police, it was obligatory for the learned Magistrate to have given reasons as to why he was disagreeing with the reasons given in the final report. It has further been submitted that the learned Magistrate has simply made bald observation that he had considered the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 but he has touched the reasons given by the Investigating Agency before proceeding to take cognizance. The counsel has also relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Bhagwan Sahai Khandelwal and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2006(2) RCC 853. ";