JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Jain, J. - Present appeal is preferred by appellants aggrieved from order dated 08.12.2020 in Sessions Case No.95/2020 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Cases, Jhunjhunu. 2. Respondent-complainant no.2 had filed a type written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu wherein allegations of harassment demand of sexual favours use of abusive language and also deliberately insulting with caste slur and abusing language against complainant, her husband and other family members were made against present appellants. On the basis of aforesaid FIR No.136/2018 was registered at P.S. Pilani under Sections 354 and 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) SC/ST (POA) Act, after investigation police had filed final closure report before learned Special Court. Thereafter, a protest petition was preferred by respondent-complainant, learned trial court preferred to examine complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and other witnesses Daya Chand, Nikita Rohilla and Jaypal Singh under Section 202 Cr.P.C. before passing the impugned order. After hearing the parties, learned trial court has proceeded to take cognizance against present appellants. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial court without considering the conclusion of FR have proceeded to take cognizance on surmises and conjectures. He further submitted that the matter was properly investigated by a senior police officer and it was found that the complainant is in habit of making false allegations against the staff of Navodaya Vidyalaya. He further submitted that at no point of time, appellant no.2 was assigned job of PTI for girls students and it is not possible that candidature of daughter of respondent no.2 was rejected at the behest of appellant no.2. He further submitted that the appellant no.3 is a Chowkidar and he was unnecessarily been implicated just to settle score with him. He further submitted that husband of complainant is employed as electrician-cum-plumber in Navodaya Vidyalaya and on multiple occasions he remained absent due to one or the other reason, therefore, in such circumstances services from appellant no.1, a contractor engaged to provide various services including electrician-cum-plumber services so as to run residential Navodaya Vidyalaya in proper manner and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. He further referred that the complaint was filed after a considerable delay and reasons of delay were not explained. He further referred that the complaint was filed after a considerable delay and reasons of delay were not explained. He further referred the statements of daughter of complainant, principal of school, cook and other witnesses to submit that none of these witnesses have corroborated that complainant or her family members were insulted or abused with casteist slur. He further submitted that on previous occasion a complaint was made by this complainant and same was found to be as false and a copy is already submitted on record. He further referred the statements and result of the investigation as carried out by police to submit that no case is made out but learned trial court merely on the basis of statements recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., have discarded the FR without assigning proper reason. He further submitted that learned trial court have made errors while taking cognizance and ignoring the reasons of closure as submitted by police. He further submitted that none of the appellant was authorized to attest any work or any voucher, therefore, specific allegation of forcing husband of complainant for attestation of voucher is thoroughly false. He further submitted that several allegations included entry in bathroom for outraging the modesty and others were raised but no specific incident and time was mentioned by complainant, therefore, these allegations are baseless and without any foundation. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel for the respondent-complainant and also learned Public Prosecutor. 5. It is submitted that all point of time complainant have raised these issues as appellants have made sexual advancement on several occasions in school campus itself. He further submitted that learned trial court have assigned sufficient reasons for taking cognizance. He further submitted that the allegation on husband of complainant are not proved in any manner and no proceedings against husband of complainant is pending, therefore, alleging that husband of complainant is not performing duties as per his duty chart and complainant is making allegation just to support him. He further submitted appellant no.2 worked as PTI for girls and he influenced for rejection of candidature of daughter of complainant. Further, he submitted that complainant was victim of collective harassment deployed by appellants and other people, therefore, in such circumstances the allegations made by complainant were well founded with material available on record and correctly considered by learned trial court. 6. Further, he submitted that complainant was victim of collective harassment deployed by appellants and other people, therefore, in such circumstances the allegations made by complainant were well founded with material available on record and correctly considered by learned trial court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. 7. Herein, the complaint was made to Superintendent of Police wherein allegation regarding expelling daughter of complainant from scout guide and also preparing or verification of false bills, excessive work etc. were made. On the basis of this report, FIR was registered on 18.05.2018, if, we consider the grounds for FR than it is pointed out that one of the daughter of complainant was awarded State award whereas candidature of another daughter was rejected from Scout Headquarter, New Delhi. Similarly, it was also pointed out that appellant no.2 is PTI for boys and he is not concerned with physical training activities of girls as there is another PTI for girls who is a female teacher. The allegations and concerns as raised by complainant were well dealt while proposing FR by Investigating Officer. 8. Herein, the statement of principal of school was also recorded and he had not supported any of allegation made by complainant. Moreover, other people (not connected with either complainant or Appellants) who were examined by police had not supported the allegations of complainant. The only question is, if husband of complainant is employed in Navodaya Vidhyalya than looking to nature of school, he is supposed to provide his services with great amount of dedication but herein, allegation of dereliction of duty were also made in the report. One of the letter dated 29.10.2015, suggest that a previous complaint of present complainant was found false, after inquiry by a committee. The specific allegations as made by complainant regarding sexual advancement and also violation of modesty were also investigated by police. None of these allegations were found correct in para 16 of FR, the specific date of these incidents were also not mentioned and looking to date of FIR dated 18.05.2018, these older incidents were not raised on earlier occasion and herein, there was no allegation of any pressure. Therefore, in view of detailed reasons as supplied by police after investigation, it clearly indicate that learned trial court was obliged to consider all these reasons before taking any cognizance. 9. Therefore, in view of detailed reasons as supplied by police after investigation, it clearly indicate that learned trial court was obliged to consider all these reasons before taking any cognizance. 9. When we look at the reasons assigned by learned trial court then it appears that only after referring the oral statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. order of cognizance was passed but learned trial court has not dealt with detailed reasons of FR, which were elaborative and well explained by Investigating Officer, as the matter pertains to affair and management of a residential school as well, funded by government. 10. Considering each and every aspect of the matter, it can be said that the appellants are employed in same school wherein husband of complainant was serving as electrician-cum-plumber whereas complainant is residing in same campus and none of resident of this campus had supported complainant. The statement of principal and other persons are also not supportive of complainant/victim. Furthermore, daughter of complainant have not uttered a single word in favour of complaint. The discrepancies between complainant and her husband are also unnoticed by learned trial court. 11. Similarly, CW4 Jaypal Singh is not resident of Navodaya Vidyalaya campus, which is a residential school, hence, Jaypal Singh cannot be considered as eye witness or material witness to the incidents, which were allegedly taken place with complainant or her family members. In complaint itself, the name of Jaypal Singh is also not mentioned. Therefore, except complainant and her husband, no other evidence is available on record to support the version of complainant, therefore, while discarding a detailed and factual investigation report, the trial court is required to proceed to take cognizance under Section 204 Cr.P.C., only when there appears to be some substantial evidence so as to discard the strong negative report. 12. Herein, everything is missing and learned trial court even if proceeded to take cognizance, therefore, the order of learned trial court is absolutely beyond the material available on record, therefore, the cognizance order passed by learned trial court is liable to be interfered by this court, hence, this appeal is liable to be allowed. 13. In view of discussion made herein above, the appeal against order dated 08.12.2020 in Sessions Case No.95/2020 arising out of FIR No.136/2018 P.S. Pilani is allowed and order of cognizance dated 08.12.2020 is set aside. The Appellants stand discharged. 14. 13. In view of discussion made herein above, the appeal against order dated 08.12.2020 in Sessions Case No.95/2020 arising out of FIR No.136/2018 P.S. Pilani is allowed and order of cognizance dated 08.12.2020 is set aside. The Appellants stand discharged. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. 15. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of.