ORDER 1. Present appeal is preferred under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act aggrieved from order dated 11.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST (POA) Act Cases), Sawaimadhopur whereby learned trial Court had proceeded to take cognizance against the appellants under Sections 379 and 447 IPC and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 2. Succinctly stated, on the basis of an incident allegedly on 24.03.2019, an FIR No. 84/2019 was lodged by the complainant respondent, Hansraj Meena whereby accused along with other person and two women of stealing his crops and when contacted by him, accused had used casteist slurs to humiliate him. Investigation was conducted but a negative FR was filed aggrieved from which the complainant filed a protest petition, whereby, learned trial court proceeded to take cognizance against the appellants under Sections 379 and 447 IPC and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(va) of SCT/ST (POA) Act. Hence this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that an FIR was registered with unexplained delay by complainant on false ground and police has submitted a negative FR for closure of the case but learned trial court had failed to appreciate the fact that no case was found proved by police. He further submitted that the person named as driver had not supported the case of complainant and moreover no eye-witness was named in the FIR in the statement of complainant. He further submitted that dispute was of drainage between the fields of appellants and respondent and respondent wanted to encroach upon the land of this drainage. He further submitted that the incident reported by complainant is thoroughly false and not confirmed by anyone. He further submitted that learned trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that in case of negative FR, the court is required to meticulously examine the evidence so produced by complainant for taking cognizance. He further submitted that the site plan further suggested that the straw crop of complaint is lying on his field itself and the evidence collected by police further suggested that complainant after getting seeds from crop just left the residue straw on the spot. He further submitted that grounds of final report are required to be considered by learned trial court but it failed to consider the same. He further submitted that grounds of final report are required to be considered by learned trial court but it failed to consider the same. He further submitted that order of cognizance was not in consonance with settled proposition of law therefore it is liable to be set a side. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel Public Prosecutor on the ground that learned trial court after due consideration had proceeded to take cognizance. Despite service of notice upon respondent No. 2, the complainant remained absent. 5. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 6. The incident is of 24.03.2019 and was reported to police on 27.03.2019, though there was no explanation for delay of almost 3 days but it is not a substantial delay. Herein, the report which was registered by complainant indicated that there was no eye witness of the incident of criminal trespass and theft on field of complainant. It was driver Mansa Gurjar who informed that he thrashed the crop brought by appellants. A report further indicated that after information from Mansa Gurjar the complainant contacted appellants wherein they have not only humiliated complainant but insulted him with abusive words and castiest slurs. The report indicated that even during so called altercations between the complainant and appellants no one was present, thus there was no eye witness of this incident as well. The complainant was examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by police wherein he had confirmed the incident in similar manner. The complainant was thereafter examined under section 200 Cr.P.C. by learned trial court and again he narrated the incident in same manner. Aforesaid clearly indicated that no one has seen criminal trespass and theft of crop from field of complainant. Similarly no public person other than appellants and respondent No.2 were said to be present at the time of altercation or so called insult or humiliation by appellants. 7. The question before us is when somebody had encroached upon the land of complainant and also committed a theft but instead of approaching police, why the complainant had visited place of appellants. There is a delay of 3 days in lodging FIR and facts have to be considered as they are being narrated from first information report to the last statement. There is a delay of 3 days in lodging FIR and facts have to be considered as they are being narrated from first information report to the last statement. Aforesaid clearly indicated that the delay has a role to play here in matter when there is no eye-witness and there were chances of recovery, if facts were found true. 8. The police had proposed and submitted a negative final report after detailed investigation and thereafter a protest protection was filed and statements of complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded whereas in support witnesses Mansa Gurjar, Makhanlal, Ramnivas and Charan Singh were examined. When we look at these statements nowhere presence of Makhanlal, Ramnivas and Charan Singh was reflected in any of the document either report or statement of complainant, hence these witnesses cannot be relied upon in support of incident. Now the question is of Mansa Gurjar who was examined under section 202 Cr.P.C. though during police investigation his statement was otherwise which supports the version of appellants. Herein at the end of the statement he stated that later on he came to know that the crop which was thrashed in his thrasher was of complainant Hansraj. Again this statement clearly indicate that this is hearsay story and this witness had not seen criminal trespass and theft of crops as alleged by complainant. Though in his statement itself it is also stated that appellants have taken him to field. Herein it is indicated that he informed on phone of Hansraj wherein he admitted that on request of Banwari he thrashed the crop on field. In none of the report or statement, averment of Hansraj confirmed telephonic conversation with Mansa Gurjar. Where there is a negative report then it is duty of learned trial court to look into each and every aspect of the matter with all possible point of view. Herein as there was no witness to any of the incident and the statement of Mansa Gurjar does not prima facie inspire any confidence as in villages everyone knows about field of other therefore learned trial court had failed to distinguish with the reasons of negative closure report submitted by police. In view of negative final report submitted by police and further no substantive evidence to discard the report was produced by complainant under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. therefore there is no ground to reject final closure report. In view of negative final report submitted by police and further no substantive evidence to discard the report was produced by complainant under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. therefore there is no ground to reject final closure report. The order of learned trial court for taking cognizance against appellants is not supported by material available on record. 9. In view of discussion as made hereinabove, order of cognizance as passed by learned trial court suffers from serious infirmities and illegalities hence same is liable to be set aside as no case is made out from the material available on record. 10. Thus the appeal under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST (POA) Act against order dated 11.05.2022 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST (POA) Act Cases), Sawai Madhopur is allowed and order dated 11.05.2022 for taking cognizance is hereby set aside. The appellants are discharged. 11. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. 12. Misc. Application, if any, stands disposed of.