ORDER : 1. The present revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) and Additional Session Judge, Bikaner whereby the learned Judge allowed the application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant and took cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sections 341, 323, 34 IPC. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that cross-cases have been registered between the parties in respect of the incident happened between them. Counsel submits that in this case, after thorough investigation, Police filed challan against other accused persons and not against the present petitioner. Further, only omnibus allegations of causing injuries have been levelled against the present petitioner and the injuries sustained by the complainant are also simple in nature. Counsel submits that there is no occasion to disbelieve the final report submitted by the Police, but the trial court without appreciating the facts mentioned in the final report, took cognizance against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order of taking cognizance may be set aside. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for complainant have opposed the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the complainant in his statement has made specifically averments against the present petitioner regarding causing of injuries. Hence, the trial court has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned as well as material available on record. 5. The complainant has made specific averment in his statement against the present petitioner regarding causing injuries. Furthermore, the corroborative evidence from CCTV footage, which places the petitioner at the place of incident, significantly strengthens the prosecution’s case by establishing the opportunity for the petitioner to have committed the alleged offence. Therefore, the combined weight of the direct accusation and the circumstantial evidence, the prevailing view is that at the stage of taking cognizance, the court’s purview is limited to asserting whether a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner. Accordingly, the trial court’s determination that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner by taking cognizance is justified. 6. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity and illegality in the impugned order warranting any interference. 7. The revision petition being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed. 8. Stay application is also dismissed.