[2026:RJ-JD:2483]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 3122/2025

1. Meghna Alias Mahak W/o Madhur Valecha, Aged About 32 Years, D/o Ravi Juneja, R/o 87/11-B, Shanti Nagar, Near Shiva Ji Park, Hisar At Present R/o S.o.-6, Ridhi Sidhi 1St, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Raj)

2. Mehul S/o Madhur Valecha, Aged About 5 Years, R/o

87/11-B, Shanti Nagar, Near Shivaji Park, Hisar At Present R/o S. O.- 6, Ridhi Sidhi Ist, Tehsil District Sri Gangangar. Minor Through Natural Guardian And Mother Meghna @mahak W/o Madhur Valecha D/o Ravi Juneja, Aged 32 Years , R/o 87/11-B, Shanti Nagar, Near Shiva Ji Park, Hisar At Present R/o S.o.-6, Ridhi Sidhi 1St, Tehsil And District Sri Ganganagar (Raj)

----Petitioners Versus Madhur Valecha S/o Shri Bhagwan Das Valecha, R/o 87/11-B, Shanti Nagar, Near Shiva Ji Park, Hisar (Hariyana)

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hans Raj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Choudhary, PP Mr. Pravesh Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

15/01/2026

1. The present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted at the behest of the petitioner, calling in question the legality and propriety of the order dated 20.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Women Harassment and Dowry Cases), Sri Ganganagar, in Criminal Revision Petition No. 6/2025.

1.1 By the impugned order, the learned Judge allowed the petition preferred by the respondent and, in consequence thereof, quashed and set aside the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Gram Nyayalaya, Sri Ganganagar. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court with a direction to afford an opportunity of hearing to both the parties afresh and thereafter to decide the case in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2025 so passed by the learned Special Court, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record.

3. Before adverting to the merits of the matter, it would be apposite to advert to the statutory provisions involved in the present case. For ready reference, Section 33 of the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of

2008”) is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“33. Appeal in criminal cases.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law, no appeal shall lie from any judgment, sentence or order of a Gram Nyayalaya except as provided hereunder.

(2) No appeal shall lie where—

(a) an accused person has pleaded guilty and has been convicted on such plea;

(b) the Gram Nyayalaya has passed only a sentence of fine not exceeding one thousand rupees (3) Subject to sub-section (2), an appeal shall lie from any other judgment, sentence or order of a Gram Nyayalaya to the Court of Session.

(4) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of judgment, sentence or order of a Gram Nyayalaya:

Provided that the Court of Session may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the said period.

(5) An appeal preferred under sub-section (3) shall be heard and disposed of by the Court of Session within six months from the date of filing of such appeal.

(6) The Court of Session may, pending disposal of the appeal, direct the suspension of the sentence or order appealed against.

(7) The decision of the Court of Session under sub- section (5) shall be final and no appeal or revision shall lie from the decision of the Court of Session:

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall preclude any person from availing of the judicial remedies available under articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.”

3. From bare perusal of the provision, it is clear that any order passed by a Gram Nyayalaya can be questioned by an agg