JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Criminal Revision No. 303/2008, whereby the revisional court dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner in relation to FIR No. 249/2004 rejecting the protest petition filed by the petitioner and accepting the final report filed by the police. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, who is a Government servant, was severely and mercilessly assaulted by the accused persons while he was going from in front of his house. He submits that the petitioner filed a complaint with specific assertion that he was assaulted by the accused and large number of injuries was caused. He stated that his watch, gold ring and bicycle were snatched away by the accused. The complaint was forwarded to the P.S. Kot Gate, Bikaner under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. where FIR No. 249/2004 was registered and investigation commenced. The petitioner was medically examined and he was found to be suffering as many as 12 injuries out of which large number of injuries were bruises, abrasions. There was a lacerated wound on the scalp of the petitioner. The petitioner was subjected to X-ray examination of the injuries but none of the injuries resulted into fracture. The Investigating Agency after investigation gave a final report in the matter with a finding that the petitioner might have received the injuries due to a fall. 4. It was urged that the Final Report submitted by the police was absolutely unacceptable because the investigating officer gave totally conjectural explanation for the injuries caused to the complainant in order to unduly favour the accused. 5. The petitioner protested against the Final Report and examined himself and Radhey Shyam in support of his case. The trial court accepted the Final Report submitted by the police by falling in line with the reasons given by the Investigating Officer. However, no reference was given to the statement of the complainant and the injuries received by him whilst accepting the Final Report. The revisional court too perfunctorily rejected the revision filed by the petitioner without even referring to the statement of the complainant/petitioner recorded under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. 6. However, no reference was given to the statement of the complainant and the injuries received by him whilst accepting the Final Report. The revisional court too perfunctorily rejected the revision filed by the petitioner without even referring to the statement of the complainant/petitioner recorded under Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below assigned flimsy reasons for throwing out the complainant's case despite the fact that his allegations were corroborated by the medical evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the accused respondents vehemently opposes the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner. 8. After having given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the Bar and after going through the orders impugned and the material available on the record, this Court is of the opinion that the reasoning assigned by the Subordinate Courts for throwing out the complainant's case is perfunctorily based on conjectures and surmises. The orders passed are sketchy and no logical reasons have been given to discard the complainant's case. The complainant received 12 injuries in the incident. As such, it cannot be accepted that such injuries could have been received simply by falling on the ground. The complainant in his statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has given clear evidence implicating the accused for the various offences. At the stage of taking cognizance, the Court is only required to examine the case only to find out whether a prima-facie case is made out or not. On an examination of the material available on the record, it is evident that there is ample evidence to proceed against the accused at this stage. 9. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the orders passed by the learned Subordinate Courts whereby the protest petition filed by the petitioner was rejected and the Final Report submitted by the investigating agency, cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the instant misc. petition is allowed, the orders dated 23.1.2009 and 13.12.2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bikaner and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner are quashed. The learned Trial Court is directed to summon all the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 382, 147, 148 and 149 I.P.C. by issuing bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each.Record be sent back forthwith.Petition allowed. *******