ORDER 1. In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioners have challenged the F.I.R. No. 04/2019 registered with Piloda, Police Station in the Distt. Sawai Madhopur for offences u/s 323, 341, 452, 504, 354 & 34 I.P.C. as well as the order of cognizance dated 24.04.2022 passed in connection with the aforesaid FIR on the protest petition filed by respondent No.2. The challenge is on the ground that the impugned FIR was maliciously instituted as counter-blast to FIR No. 129/2018 registered with the same Police Station for offences under Section 323, 341, 354 and 498A IPC. 2. The case of the petitioners is that sister of the petitioners namely Nareshi Bai was married with Dharam Singh. Respondent No.2 Hari Gopal @ Mukesh, is elder brother of Dharam Singh. Nareshi Bai lodged FIR No. 129/2018 on 26.12.2018 for an incident of assault dated 24.12.2018 which was allegedly for nonfulfillment of dowry demands. Respondent No.2 and his wife Muneshi are accused in the case and they are also carrying allegation of physical assault for non-fulfillment of dowry demand. The husband of Nareshi is also accused in the aforesaid case. The trial of the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence. 3. The impugned FIR was lodged on 2.1.2019 by respondent No.2 alleging therein that on 24.12.2018, there was some altercation between Nareshi and Muneshi. Nareshi called her brothers (petitioners herein) who came on a motor cycle on 25.12.2018. They started hurling abuses to Muneshi and bitterly assaulted to Muneshi. When the neighbours came, they rescued Muneshi. Respondent No.2 reported the matter to the police on 26.12.2018, however the police did not register the case thereafter respondent No.2 sent a registered letter to the Superintendent of Police of the District on 27.12.2018. No action was taken on the letter then a complaint petition was filed before the Judicial Magistrate who forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.to the police and the police registered the impugned FIR No. 04/2019. After investigation of the case, the police submitted Final Report. Thereafter under directions of the Magistrate, the matter was further investigated and again Final Report was submitted by the police. After investigation of the case, the police submitted Final Report. Thereafter under directions of the Magistrate, the matter was further investigated and again Final Report was submitted by the police. On the basis of protest petition filed by the complainant, learned Magistrate conducted inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C and considering the statement of witnesses of inquiry, cognizance was taken for offences under Section 323, 341, 452, 504, 354 & 34 I.P.C by the impugned order dated 21.4.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned criminal prosecution suffers, out and out, from malice to pressurize the petitioners in the case under Section 498A IPC brought by the sister of the petitioners against respondent and his family members. The police twice investigated the matter and on both occasions submitted negative final reports which goes to show the falsity of the case of respondent No.2. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Anupriya Pal & ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2019) 14 SCC 643 , (ii) Prashant Bharti Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293 ; and (iii) Rajiv Thapar & ors. Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330 . 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that in both the FIRs, the incident is alleged to have taken place on the same day. Even if matrimonial dispute was there, it cannot be ruled out that for that dispute, the offence as alleged in the impugned FIR would have been committed against the family members of respondent No.2. While taking cognizance in the case, the learned Magistrate has mentioned in the impugned order that the police examined only witnesses of the village of the petitioners and not any of the villagers of place of occurrence. Therefore, the investigation was itself faulty one. Moreover, the witnesses of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. who supported the allegations are neighbours of the place of occurrence. In that view of the matter, this Court should not substitute its decision to that of the learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C 6. Therefore, the investigation was itself faulty one. Moreover, the witnesses of inquiry under Section 202 Cr.P.C. who supported the allegations are neighbours of the place of occurrence. In that view of the matter, this Court should not substitute its decision to that of the learned Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that medical report of Muneshi would reveal that she had sustained simple bruises only and the time of injury does not correspond to the date of incident, for the simple reason that eye-witnesses cannot be disbelieved only for the medical report especially when the medical report does not contain the reason for such finding that injury was caused seven to eight days back vide date of examination dated 11.1.2019. Learned counsel contends that meticulous appreciation of evidence would not be permissible at this stage to scuttle the criminal prosecution without trial. 7. On consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and available material on record, it is evident that both sides have alleged that incident happened on 24.12.2018/25.12.2018. There is no dispute that there is matrimonial discord between the two family, hence chances of commission of alleged act in both the FIRs cannot be ruled out completely. It is common experience that some times, due to matrimonial dispute, the family members of the bride also commit the offence of assault etc. There is nothing substantial to disbelieve the impugned FIR only for the reason that it is subsequent to the FIR lodged by the petitioner side. The Magistrate after recording the statements of witnesses of the occurrence has come to the conclusion that it is a fit case wherein all accused should be summoned to face trial. Therefore, cognizance order could cannot be faulted with. 8. The facts of Anupriya Pal (supra) is quite distinguishable as matrimonial discord in the family had started two years back prior to lodging of the FIR on 2.12.2011 and filing of the maintenance case on 5.6.2011. In that case, the impugned FIR under Section 420 and 504 IPC was filed on 3.7.2012 evidently after lapse of a long time from filing of the counter-case. In the circumstances, the subsequent FIR was quashed. In that case, the impugned FIR under Section 420 and 504 IPC was filed on 3.7.2012 evidently after lapse of a long time from filing of the counter-case. In the circumstances, the subsequent FIR was quashed. In Prashant Bharti (supra), the complainant had herself besides the accused, had filed a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR lodged by herself for offences under Section 376, 324 and 354 IPC. In Rajiv Thapar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court said that while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the Court need not go into the truthfulness of the allegations nor can weight of defence evidence be determined. When materiel placed before the Court prima facie shows truthfulness of the allegations, the trial must proceed even when accused is successful in raising some suspicion or doubt in allegations levelled. This is so because it would result in giving finality to the accusation levelled by the prosecution, without allowing the prosecution to adduce the evidence to substantiate the same. 9. Considering the settled proposition of law, and the facts of this case, as discussed above, this Court is of the view that no interference in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is required in this matter, hence this petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. 10. Let a copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Sawai Madhopur who shall ensure that judgment in both the cases should be passed by the same Judge.