Gopal Krishna Vyas, J.
1. By the present petition moved under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioners seek to challenge order dated 6.8.1999 whereby the learned Judl. Magistrate, Kuchaman City proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners for offences under Sections 148, 447, 427 and 379, I.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 68/99 and, so also, order dated 6.9.2005 passed by the revisional Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Parbatsar. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Trial Court has erred in law in taking cognizance of alleged offences against the petitioners in the absence of sufficient evidentiary material on record. He submitted that the case is of civil nature because the land in question was sold to the petitioners by the complainant vide an agreement to sale and the petitioners have filed suit in which stay order was granted upon the application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2, C.P.C. in which restraining the complainant and other persons it is ordered that they will not sell the land in question situated in Khasra No. 456, Rakba 1.45 hectare Moja Jasrana and the State Government as well as Registration Department have been restrained from registering the sale document, if any, executed by non-petitioner No. 2. Further, while ordering status quo with regard to the land in question, the Court has ordered that no mutation shall be made in favour of Mukana Ram. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that FIR was also filed for offences under Sections 147, 447 and 379, I.P.C. against complainant and 7 others and there is litigation going on in between the parties. It has, therefore, been submitted that cognizance has wrongly been taken against the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners next contended that the revisional Court failed to appreciate the matter in correct perspective and, therefore, the order dated 6.9.2005 is arbitrary and illegal.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also invited attention of the Court towards judgments reported in 2004(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 95, Nazeer Ahmed and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 2004 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 135, Devilal v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2004 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 214, Almi v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 2004 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 225 Jagdish v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. He has also placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 2000 Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 218, Narendra Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan. I have gone through the judgments cited. It is clear from the facts of the case in hand that the suit was filed in the month of May 1999 and still the complainant and his brother Dana Ram are khatedars of the land in question. There is no sale by the complainant in favour of the petitioners. As such the facts of the present case are entirely different than the facts of the cases cited by learned Counsel for the petitioners. I have carefully gone through the orders impugned. It is specifically mentioned in order passed by the Trial Court that in the complaint and his statement recorded under Section 200, Cr.P.C, the complainant categorically stated that there is land situated in khasra 456, Rakba 1.45 hectare in moja Jasrana which belongs to him and his brother Danaram and they are in possession of the same. Revenue record has also been filed alongwith the complaint which shows that the said land is in the name of complainant and his brother.
3. It is specifically averred that the petitioners entered in the field of the complainant illegally on 2.12.1998 at about 10-11 P.M. and destroyed the crop and cut down khejari trees. It is alleged by the complainant that when he proceeded to file FIR, SHO Banney Singh refused to register the case and he was also threatened by the petitioner Kunna Ram that he had thick relations with SHO Banney Singh and as such no case was registered though request was made by the complainant. On appreciation of the material coming up on record before the Trial Court, the Court prima facie found case made out against the petitioners under Sections 148, 447, 427 and 379, I.P.C. Accordingly, vide order dated 6.3.1999 the Trial Court proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners. It is well settled that at the time of issuing process the Magistrate is required only to see the allegations in the complaint. If, in the opinion of the Magistrate taking cognizance of offence, there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may issue process. The word 'sufficient ground' only suggest that allegations in the complaint should constitute an offence. Similarly, at the stage of issuing the process, the Magistrate wilt have before him only the complaint unaccompied by any document or evidence at that stage. Even at the stage of framing the charge, the accused has no such right and the Magistrate cannot be asked to look into the documents produced by the accused at that stage. Therefore, at the time of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind to either the material on record in case of police challan or the allegations in the complaint in case of a private complaint and proceed in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
4. In the present case, from perusal of the complaint it is clearly revealed that as per allegations in the complaint and statement recorded under Section 202, Cr.P.C. offence is made out and, therefore, the learned Magistrate has rightly proceeded to take cognizance of the offences against the petitioners. The judgments cited by learned Counsel for the petitioners are in respect of cases of civil nature and accordingly there was occasion for quashing the order of taking cognizance. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, from the allegations set out in the complaint a clear case emerged for the Magistrate to proceed for taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners.
5. The revisional Court too, after considering the arguments of the parties, did not find any case of interference and upheld the order dated 6.3.1999.
6. So far as the petitioners' argument that revision petition filed by Banney Singh has been allowed by the revisional Court and order of cognizance taken against him has been set aside is concerned it may be noted that the revision petition was allowed on the ground that no prosecution permission was obtained prior to taking cognizance against Banney Singh.
7. I have also considered the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that this is a case of civil nature. It is strange that the complaint is related to the occurrence which is said to have taken place on 2.12.1998 whereas the suit was filed in the year 1999 and stay order was granted on 29.11.2000. The suit was admittedly filed even after taking cognizance by the learned Trial Court; more specifically, the suit was filed on 28.5.1999 whereas cognizance was taken on 6.3.1999. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is without any force.
8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, on the record, it is obvious that the learned Magistrate has neither committed and illegality nor is there any error in impugned order dated 6.3.1999 and consequently, order of the revisional Court dated 6.9.2005 also does not warrant any interference.
9. In the result, the petition is dismissed.