JUDGMENT : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain, J. - The instant appeal under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1989") aggrieved from an order of cognizance dated 21.9.2019 relating to FIR No. 234/2015, P.S. Mahila Thana, Alwar, whereby learned Special Judge (POCSO Act) No. 1, Alwar, after rejecting the FR, had proceeded to take cognizance against the appellants. 2. The fact in a nutshell that on 20.8.2015, an FIR No. 234/2015 was registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, District Alwar, on the complaint of a minor victim with the allegation that, when on 19.8.2015 around 11 a.m., the victim was alone at her home, both the appellants forcefully entered her room and tried to rape her. Police after conducting investigation submitted an FR in the matter on various grounds. Thereafter, a protest petition against the Impugned order was passed and a warrant of arrest was issued against the appellants. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant heavily relied upon report submitted by the police after a joint investigation in FIR No. 234/2015, P.S. Mahila Thana, Alwar, FIR No. 346/2015, P.S. Arawall Vihar, 342/2015, 349/2015, P.S. Arawali Vihar and 775/2015, P.S. Kotwall, Alwar; and submitted that in FIR No. 345/2015 registered at P.S. Arawali Vihar, a charge-sheet was filed against Karan Singh, Kedar Singh and Goverdhan Singh but cognizance was taken against appellant No. 1 as well. Aftur framing of charge, trial had already begun in the said case but after Investigation in FIR No. 234/2015, police had submitted a FR before the Court and learned Trial Court without application of mind and over looking the facts submitted with FR, initiated the process for taking cognizance against the appellants, knowing that on similar facts, a charge-sheet in FIR No. 346/2015, P.S. Arawali Vihar had already been filed. He submitted that, on similar facts, appellants were forced to face charges in two cases, one in FIR No. 346/2015, P.S. Arawali Vihar and other in present case. 4. He submitted that, on similar facts, appellants were forced to face charges in two cases, one in FIR No. 346/2015, P.S. Arawali Vihar and other in present case. 4. He relied upon the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors., reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 and submitted that the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant in the present matter is mala fide and was Instituted just to harass the present appellants with the ultimate aim of encroaching upon a piece of land for which a serious dispute is already pending before the Civil Court. He further submitted that the facts and the documents submitted along with the petition and thereafter, clearly indicated that the dispute between parties pertained to a piece of land for which a forged agreement and other documents were prepared by the family members of the present complainant. He further referred to the FIR No. 775/2015, P.S. Kotwall, Alwar, wherein, after Investigation, pole had concluded that the signature of Shyain Babu on an agreement, which is in favour of Naval Devi, was forged, and the Investigating officer had filed a charge-sheet against Naval Devi and Mamraj Verma under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120B I.P.C.; as Naval Devi and Mamraj Verma are close relatives of the victim/complainant. It is further submitted that at the time of the incident, the appellants were not present at the spot, which can be verified from call details, and the Investigating Officer had concluded that the appellants were not present at the spot and no such crime had actually taken place. He further submitted that the statements recorded by the Investigating Officer clearly indicated that the incident as narrated by them was clearly unbelievable and could not happen in ordinary course of nature. He further referred to the FIR No. 346/2015 registered at P.S. Arawall Vine wherein the incident that was reported to P.S. Mahila Thana and registered as FIR No. 234/2015 was also included. 5. He further submitted that learned Trial Court had exceeded Its jurisdiction and without taking into consideration the reasons of FR had proceeded to take cognizance, which is not in accordance with law. 5. He further submitted that learned Trial Court had exceeded Its jurisdiction and without taking into consideration the reasons of FR had proceeded to take cognizance, which is not in accordance with law. He further submitted that except for the oral statement of the victim, no other evidence is available on record to corroborate the incident, therefore, this order of cognizance is bad in eyes of law. He further submitted that the dispute of property is of civil nature and just to put pressure on present appellants so as to oust them from piece of land, present case was registered. He further submitted that while ignoring the material available on record, an order of cognizance was passed, which is liable to be set aside. 6. At last, referring the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors., reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 , he submitted that when FR was filed and cognizance was taken on protest petition at the first instance, the Issuance of warrant of arrest was deficient and the learned Trial Court had committed serious error while issuing the warrant of arrest to procure the present appellants. 7. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant on the ground that the facts described in FIR No. 234/2015, P.S. Mahila Thana, and FIR No. 346/2015, P.S. Arawall Vihar are different and they relate to different incidences, one with a minor victim and the other with an attempt for possession and other facts. He further submitted that learned Trial Court had very well explained the reasons of cognizance along with discussion with regard to other facts. He further submitted that the order suffers no illegality and there are no legal grounds to interfere in the order of cognizance passed by learned Trial Court. He further submitted that appellants were regularly trying to dispossess the family of the complainant, and they are influential people. He further submitted that the learned Trial Court is rot bound by the report of the police, and the Court can proceed to take cognizance if sufficient ground exists for further proceedings. 8. While referring to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., reported in AIR 2004 SC 1734 and Rajesh Talwar v. C.B.I. (Delhi) and Ors. 8. While referring to the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., reported in AIR 2004 SC 1734 and Rajesh Talwar v. C.B.I. (Delhi) and Ors. submitted that the order of cognizance passed by learned Trial Court is very we reasoned order wherein each and every aspect was addressed by learned Trial Court, and this Court cannot go beyond illegality or perversity. 9. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant, learned Counsel for the respondent and learned Public Prosecutor. 10. Perused the material available on record and also considered the law points cited by both parties. 11. Firstly, we deal with the scope of the appeal, for which Section 14A(1) of the Act of 1989 has to be kept in mind, which reads as under:- "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), an appeal shall lie, from any judgement, sentence or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Special Court or an Exclusive Special Court, to the High Court both on facts and on law." 12. Aforesaid provision clearly indicates that an appeal can lie from are judgement or order of the Special Court to the High Court based on both facts are law, and that the scope of an appeal is far wider than the scope of a revision as provided under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. 13. Aforesaid provision empowers the High Court to address the grievance raised by way of appeal on both a factual and legal aspect, since the law provides for wider interpretation, this Court cannot assume that the provision is made for' narrow Interpretation. Therefore, argument of learned Counsel for the respondent regarding the scope of the present appellant are not acceptable. 14. If we look at the facts, it appears that FIR No. 234/2015, which was registered on 20.8.2015 at PS. Mahila Thana, was almost similar to FIR No. 346/2015, P.S. Arawali Vihar registered on 22.8.2015. The only difference this Court can point out is that in FIR No. 234/2015, attempt to rape was alleged on both the appellants by a minor victim and an offence under POCSO Act and SC/ST (POA) Act was registered whereas in FIR No. 346/2015, allegations were made against more people for an alleged attempt for forcible possession, Intimidation and violation of modesty for same minor victim and another adult victim. The important aspect of the present matter is the investigation by a police officer, who investigated all FIRS registered during that particular time between the parties concerned, recommended a charge-sheet in FIR No. 346/2015 whereas recommended FR in FIR No. 234/2015 The fact of the matter is that there is also a civil suit between Naval Devi v. Vishal, wherein on 29.7.2018 and a stay order was passed by Civil Judge No. 1, Alwar. The FIRS were registered after this civil suit but keeping in mind that this Court cannot observe anything which is prejudicial to any criminal or civil proceedings pending between the parties in the District Courts of Alwar, but one thing is quite cle: there are almost duplicate facts in multiple cases and on the basis of such facts these FIRS were registered; one more difference between these two FIRS is that FIR No. 234/2015, P.S. Mahila Thana, was registered on 20.8.2015 whereas FIR No. 346/2015 was registered on 22.8.2015 but they relate to an incident that occurred on the same day. The allegations in FIR No. 234/2015 is attempt to rape a minor, and the same was registered under the POCSO Act and SC/ST Act 21 well. 15. The investigation suggested a molestation charge in FIR No. 346/2015, P.S. Arawall Vihar, with regard to same minor victim named in FIR No. 234/2015 but police had not recommended a charge-sheet under the POCSO Act, and so the Court wherein charge-sheet is filed, also failed to take cognizance of the POCSO Act in FIR No. 346/2015, P.S. Arawall Vihar. 16. Since, the difference is distinguishable and same was distinguished by the learned Trial Court while passing the cognizance order, any charge for which a trial is conduct in any of the matters than same cannot be tried in another FIR. The principle of double jeopardy is very specific and much clearer in the judgement of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. (supra) but the difference is carved out in these two FIRS; therefore, we cannot accept the argument as advanced by appellants. The principle of double jeopardy is very specific and much clearer in the judgement of T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Ors. (supra) but the difference is carved out in these two FIRS; therefore, we cannot accept the argument as advanced by appellants. The fact of the matter is the order of cognizance in FIR No. 346/2015, P.S. Arawali Vihar, was not challenged in any manner and same was not challenged before us but in FIR No. 234/2015, P.S. Mahila Thana, which was registered prior to FIR No. 346/2015, P.S. Arawali Vihar, wherein the allegations of attempt to rape minor were made, learned Trial Court had proceeded to take cognizance after distinguishing the fact from other FIR, therefore, there is no reason to interfere on the ground that the order of cognizance is passed in duplicacy of ongoing trial in FIR No. 346/2015. 17. Now the question is can this Court go into aspect of merits of the case. For this purpose when we look at record which was submitted by learned Counsel for appellant and referred during course of argument then we find that in the statements made by complainant and witnesses in support of complainant clearly Indicated the indictment of the appellant and both appellants were named specifically therefore having a limitation that factual aspect of the matter can be considered only when deposition is subject to cross-examination or a trial. There are no grounds wherein we can conclude that the case in hand is a concocted and fabricated case therefore it is a misuse of a process. 18. As far as the power of the learned Trial Court is concerned, there is no doubt about it that the Trial Court is competent to take cognizance of or disagree with the police report as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Jagdish Ram (supra) and Rajesh Talwar (supra) as referred by learned Counsel for the respondent. 19. Since the incidents in both the FIRS discussed herein are different, there is no need to go into details of factual aspect or legal aspect of the matter. We also feel that now a days there is tendency to settle the civil disputes by way of invoking criminal proceedings and may be that in the present matter as well same methodology was adopted but that is not enough to interfere in the order of cognizance. 20. We also feel that now a days there is tendency to settle the civil disputes by way of invoking criminal proceedings and may be that in the present matter as well same methodology was adopted but that is not enough to interfere in the order of cognizance. 20. Learned Trial Court has directed to issue a warrant of arrest to procure the presence of appellants, whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami (supra) has clearly laid down that in case of cognizance on FR, issuance of warrant of arrest at first instance is not appreciable. Herein, the learned Trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction while taking cognizance of FR by Issuing a warrant of arrest at the first Instance, therefore, the order to issue a warrant of arrest against the appellants is liable to be set aside. 21. In view of the discussion made here in above, the challenge to order of cognizance dated 21.9.2019 cannot be entertained but process of Issuance of warrant of arrest to procure the presence of appellants cannot be approved. 22. Thus, the appeal under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act against order dated 21.9.2019 is partially allowed, while maintaining the order of cognizance dated 21.9.2019, it is directed to summon appellants through summons to procure their presence. The appeal challenging the order of cognizance is hereby dismissed.