JUDGMENT : G.R. Moolchandani, J. Petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 12.6.2014 passed by Sessions Judge, Sikar in Criminal Revision Petition No. 36/2014 whereby learned court below has confirmed the order of cognizance resorted to by the trial court in Criminal Case No. 162/2012, FR No. 78/2012, while disposing of Protest Petition and taking cognizance against both the petitioners on 28.10.2013. 2. 2. In nutshell, Smt. Sumitra w/o Shiv Kumar lodged FIR No. 143 on 18.9.2012 with Sadar Fatehpur Police Station, Sikar, for the offences punishable under section 451, 354, 509, 341 of IPC, contents of same being relevant, are quoted as under :- lsok esa Jheku Fkkukf/kdkjh egksn; lnj Fkkuk Qrsgiqj egksn;] fuosnu gS fd dy lka; 5 cts ds yxHkx eSa esjs ?kj ij dke dj jgh Fkh rHkh Hkaojyky iq= fcjtw o v'kksd iq= Hkaojyky <+kdk xkyh fudkyrs gq, esjs ?kj esa ?kqls o dgk fd rw esjh cPph ds ckjs esa xkao esa cnuke djrh gS vkt rsjs dks ldc fl[kk;saxs] ;g dg dj mUgksus esjk gkFk idM+ fy;k o eq>s ?klhV dj ckgj ys tkus yxkA esjs diM+s QkM+ fn;s o yTtk Hkax dh eSaus gYyk fd;k rc Hkkxdj esjh iq=h iwue o fueZyk o esjs nsoj ds ?kj ij cSBk >kcj cqjM+d Hkkx dj vk;kA mUgksaus eq>s NqM+k;k vU;Fkk oks yksx esjs lkFk v'yhy gjdr djrsA blds i'pkr~ eSaus ?kVuk dh lwpuk esjs ifr dks nh rc mUgksaus Hkaojyky dks Qksu fd;k rc Hkaojyky us esjs ifr dks Hkh Qksu dj xkyh xyksp fd;k o Qksu dkVrs gh esjs ?kj ij iRFkjksa dh ckSNkj dh nh fQj jkf= dks esjs ifr us iqfyl dks Qksu fd;k rc iqfyl okyksa us Hkaojyky dks Qksu fd;k rc gekjs ?kj ls Hkaojyky] vk'kksd o jktw fQj vk;s o xkyh xyksp fd;k o iRFkj QsadsA eSaus Mj ds ekjs njoktk ugha [kksyk vU;Fkk laxhu okjnkr dj nsrsA jkf= dks eSa vdsyh gksus ds dkj.k fjiksVZ ntZ ugha djk ldh vc esjs ifr dks cqykdj fjiksVZ ntZ djkus vkbZ gwaA Jheku~ fjiksVZ ntZ dj dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djus dh d`ik djsaA fnuakd 18-09-2012 izkFkhZuh SD lqfe=k ifRu f'kodqekj fuoklh gjlkok cM+k Qrsgiqj lhdj Qksu 9460749450 dk;Zokgh iqfyl 1 izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr rgjhjh fjiksVZ Jherh lqfe=k ifRu f'kodqekj <+kdk tkfr tkV R/O gjlkok cM+k mez 45 lky Ps lnj Qrsgiqj us e; vius ifr Jh f'kodqekj S/O x.ks'kkjke ds mifLFkr Fkkuk gksdj is'k dh 12 etewu fjiksVZ ls ekeyk tqeZ /kkjk 451] 354] 509] 341 IPC ds odq esa vkuk ik;s tkus ij lh/kk dEI;wVj esa yksM+ dj eq0u0 143@12 /kkjk mijksDr esa ntZ dj rQrh'k Jh f'kodj.k HC 710 ds ftEes dh xbZA 3 izfr;ka FIR lh/kk dEI;wVj esa fu;ekuqlkj tkjh dh xbZ o ,d izfr ifjokfn;k dks fu%'kqYd nh xbZA 3. The Investigating Agency submitted FR requesting that merely case under section 504 of IPC being non cognizable offence, was found to have been committed and FR No. 78/2012 was submitted on 5.10.2012. The complainant, having filed Protest Petition against the same, has agitated that offence was committed as delineated in the FIR, further statements of Smt. Sumitra, Nirmala and Ganesha Ram were recorded under section 200 and 202 of CrPC, 1973 discussing entire fact scenario and deposition, learned trial court took cognizance of the offence, which was challenged by the accused petitioners before the Court of Sessions Judge, Sikar, the revisional court, while dismissing the Revision Petition on 12.6.2014, the revisional court has upheld the order of cognizance passed by learned trial court dated 28.10.2013 against the accused-petitioners. 4. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that no independent witness has been examined and revisional court has committed grave error in dismissing the Revision, since trial court has not appreciated the evidence properly and has failed to appreciate that no independent witness was there and Investigating Agency has conducted fair investigation despite the trial court rejecting the FR, has allowed Protest Petition and has wrongly taken cognizance, which is not tenable in the eye of law, so, the petition be allowed and order of both the courts below be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has contended that the courts below have not committed any error since complainant has given her statement in syncs with the contents of FIR and there is no exaggeration of any kind. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2, supporting the view of learned Public Prosecutor has contended that in fact Investigating Agency has not conducted a fair investigation and despite arriving at a conclusion that offence under section 504 of IPC has been committed, has given a false conclusion that cognizable offence has not been committed and has incorrectly diluted the issue, so there is no wrong in the findings of both the courts below. Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard both the sides, I gave a considered perusal to the record and evidence available on the record. 7. Perusal of final report submitted by Investigating Agency does show that offence under section 504 of IPC has been found to have been committed. Petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. Having heard both the sides, I gave a considered perusal to the record and evidence available on the record. 7. Perusal of final report submitted by Investigating Agency does show that offence under section 504 of IPC has been found to have been committed. Contents of deposition adduced under section 200 and 202 of CrPC, 1973 produced by complainant Smt. Sumitra, her daughter Nirmala and Ganesha Ram transpires that complainant Smt. Sumitra has given her testimony in syncs to FIR and she has candidly stated that Ashok while hurling abuses barged into her house and after threatening, caught hold of her and tried to drag her outside of her house, when resisted, her clothes were torn and she was given beatings, her modesty was disparaged, her daughters Nirmala, Punam and brother-in-law (Devar), who were there, came to her rescue. Testimony of Ms. Nirmala has also stated almost similar and the same version is ratified by Ganesha Ram as well. 8. It is worthy to observe that the Investigating Agency has also found some kind of offence to have been committed and I.O. has opined it to be of 504 of IPC. 9. Learned revisional court as well as trial court have dealt with the niceties of the evidence meticulously and there appears no infirmity in the findings of both the courts below. In the result, petition lacks substance, so is dismissed accordingly.