HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5353/2022 Shanti Dhariwal S/o Late Shri Rikhabh Chand Dhariwal ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan And Ors.

----Respondents Connected With

1. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 114/2022 2. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 115/2022 3. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 131/2022

4. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 1717/2022

5. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 461/2025 6. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (petition) No. 653/2025 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. assisted by Ms. Savita Nathawal and Mr. Amar Kumar Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora with Mr. Sahajveer Baweja and Ms. Amulya Jemini Mr. Pankaj Gupta with Mr. Saurabh Yadav Mr. Saransh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.V. Raju, ASG with Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, AAG Mr. Anurag Sharma, SPP with Mr. Harsh Sharma Mr. Shashank Khurana Mr. Samrath Goswami Ms. Saubhagya Sundriyal Ms. Sonali Gaur Mr. Hitharth Raja Mr. Shaurya Sarin Mr. Deepak Verma Mr. Ashish Kumar Singh for intervenor with Mr. Vagish Kumar Singh Mr. Sakshi Agarwal and Ms. Anupam Bhargava HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

01/11/2025

1. Vide order dated 15.11.2022, a Single Judge of this Court had quashed the proceedings as against the petitioner in the present criminal miscellaneous petition. The order was assailed by one Ashok Pathak in Criminal Appeal No.4454/2024 before the Apex Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated

05.11.2024 has observed as under:

"11. It seems to us that it would have been more appropriate for the High Court to take a holistic view upon consideration of the rival submissions, including that of the complainant, who had submitted the protest petition and/or any other person, who is found to have a locus to raise such an objection. It is always ideal that such controversies are resolved on merits, may be with brief reasons. Since a protest petition against the second closure report was pending and the Trial Court was yet to take a view as to whether the protest petitioner had any locus standi to submit such objections and/or whether there was any merit in such protest petition, the most appropriate recourse for the High Court would have been to wait for the outcome of those proceedings and thereafter take a final view.

12. It goes without saying that if no protest petition was/is pending before the Trial Court, there could be no impediment for the High Court to proceed with the quashing petition and decide the same in accordance with law.

13. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations and/or the locus standi of the appellant, who has approached this Court, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2022 and remit the case to the High Court for fresh adjudication after:-

(i) giving an opportunity to respondent no.3 (petitioner before the High Court) to supplement his pending petition with any additional material, if so advised.

(ii) permit the appellant before us to intervene in the proceedings subject to the determination of the objection of respondent no.3 regarding his locus standi.

(iii) call for the records of the Trial Court, if so required, for an effective adjudication of all the issues.

(iv) also verify whether any protest petition was/is pending and if so, the High Court may take an appropriate decision with regard to disposal thereof. "

2. As noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the FIR was registered in the year 2014 and the incident is stated to be from

2005/2010.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that it is a fact that a negative report was submitted earlier before the trial Court which rejected the same vide order dated 18.04.2022 and directed for further investigation.

4. Keeping in view the observations made in certain paras of the order namely paras No.173 to 201. He submits that such