HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1639/2025

1. Prabhu Ram S/o Bhadar Ram, Aged About 52 Years,

Resident Of Rampura Matoria, Tehsil Rawatsar District

Hanumangarh.

2. Om Prakash S/o Bhadar Ram, Aged About 50 Years,

Resident Of Rampura Matoria, Tehsil Rawatsar District

Hanumangarh

3. Rohitash S/o Prabhu Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident

Rampura Matoria, Tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioners

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Bhura Ram S/o Devi Lal, Resident Of Rampura

Matoria,tehsil Rawatsar District Hanumangarh

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prabhu Ram, present in person

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

05/01/2026

1. An application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been moved at the behest of the appellants, it is submitted that the impugned order was passed behind the back of the petitioners, without their knowledge or opportunity of hearing, and consequently, they were unaware of the passing of

the said order.

2. The law of limitation is essentially a rule of discipline, which mandates that an aggrieved party must challenge an order within the time prescribed by law. However, this principle operates only

in cases where the party had actual or constructive knowledge of the order. Where an order is passed against a person without notice or audience, the limitation would commence only from the date on which such person acquires knowledge of the order. Once it is demonstrated that the petitioners approached the Court with reasonable promptitude upon gaining knowledge of the impugned order, the length of delay pales into insignificance. Justice cannot be allowed to be thwarted on technicalities when sufficient cause is shown.

3. In this view of the matter, the delay occasioned in filing the present revision petition stands satisfactorily explained.

4. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed, and the delay of 128 days in filing the instant revision is condoned.

5. The revision be treated within the limitation.

6. Heard. 7. Admit.

8. Issue notice. Call for the record.

S.B. MISC. STAY PETITION NO. 10787/2025

9. The criminal case came to be registered against the present petitioners, wherein, upon completion of investigation, the investigating agency submitted a negative final report.

10. The respondent–complainant, being dissatisfied with the said report, filed a protest petition. During the inquiry conducted thereupon, five witnesses were examined. The learned Trial Judge, exercising discretion, allowed the protest petition and rejected the closure report, pursuant to which bailable warrants were issued against the petitioners. Although the learned Trial Judge has observed in paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order that she was not agreeable with the police report, a bare perusal of the order under challenge reveals that no discussion or consideration whatsoever has been made with regard to the grounds on which the closure report was submitted.

11. The order appears to have been passed without adverting to the reasons recorded by the investigating agency, which were required to be judicially examined before taking cognizance.

12. In view of the above infirmity, the matter prima facie requires consideration.

13. Issue notice, returnable on 11.02.2026.

14. In the meantime, the effect and operation of the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Hanumangarh in FIR No.142/2024shall remain stayed.

(FARJAND ALI),J

186-chhavi/-