HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 10296/2025 Anand Sharma S/o Sushil Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Ward No 18, P.s. Kotwali, Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet Jain, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.S. Jodha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

16/01/2026 The present criminal misc. petition has been filed aggrieved against the order dated 25.02.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Churu, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section Section 193 BNSS (173(8) Cr.P.C.), seeking a medical report and further investigation was dismissed. Further vide the said order, cognizance was taken against the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved only by rejection of his application contending that the case involves the offence under Section 117(3), as the accused had bitten and severed the lip of the petitioner, consequently offence under Section 117(2) which pertains to disfiguration and Section 117(3) which pertains to permanent disability were attracted.

He submits that while seeking the opinion of medical jurist, only the opinion regarding disfiguration was sought, and no appropriate opinion with respect to disability under Section 117(3) was obtained. It is submitted that this section is newly introduced under the BNS and there was no such bifurcation earlier therefore, it was required for the Investigating Agency to specifically seek such opinion when the same amounts to a separate and more aggravated offences. It is submitted that the challan was only been filed under Section 117(2) of BNS, whereas the severance of the lips has resulted in permanent disability. In these circumstances, the petitioner had filed an application before the trial Court, however, looking to the fact that the challan was filed and the fact that the Court was taking cognizance under Section 117(3) the application was not entertained and the same was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of such a report, his case would be weakened, and further when there is a specific offence of disability, it was the duty of the Investigation Agency to seek a specific report, failure to do so not only denies fair investigation, but also results in denial of fair trial to him.

The learned counsel for the petitioner proceeding further submits that although the application was filed by him before the learned trial Court, the same did not preclude the petitioner from approaching the Investigation Agency for further investigation at their level and for seeking an appropriate report from the medical jurist. It is submitted that further investigation by the agency is not prohibited even after filing of the charge-sheet, and the only requirement is to inform the Court under proviso to Section 193(9) of BNS. He submits that such a report is material to the trial and would seriously prejudiced the trial of the petitioner, especially when he has been permanently disabled and the accused cannot be let off scot free from such an offence.

He submits that he does not wish to press the misc. petition on merits before this Court but seeks liberty to approach the Investigation Agency. However he apprehended that in such circumstance, the present order may come in way of further investigation under the provision of Section 193(9), which otherwise should not effect the investigation agency.

Learned Public Prosecutor submits that although the application has been rejected, but if the learned counsel for the petitioner is not pressing the misc. petition on merits, and if he otherwise approaches the authorities, they are bound to act in accordance with law.

This Court has considered the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as heard learned Public Prosecutor. At the outset it appears that in the present case the grievance