[2026:RJ-JD:3255]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1200/2025 Riyaz Khan S/o Sher Mohammed, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 22. Rajgarh, District- Churu (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

2. Shahwaz Khan S/o Nazir Khan, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Mohalla Nardian, Ward No. 22, Rajgarh, District- Churu (Raj.)

3. Talib Beg S/o Sagir Beg, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Mohalla Dhiru Khan Ki Dhani, Ward No. 19, Rajgarh.

District-Churu (Raj.)

4. Saqib S/o Shaukat Ali, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Mohalla Nardian, Ward No. 22. Rajgarh, District-Churu (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aadu Ram Jat for Dr. Rohit Kaswan For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

16/01/2026

1. The instant criminal revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. (now under Section 438 of BNSS, 2023) against the judgment dated 16.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Rajgarh, Churu (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Appellate Court') in Criminal Appeal No.81/2024, whereby, the learned Appellate Cour has dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh, Churu (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned trial Court') in Criminal Case No.1016/2022, whereby, learned trial Court convicted the private respondents No.2 to 4. However, extended the benefit of Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act. The private respondents No.2 to 4 were charge-sheeted for committing offence under Sections 451, 341, 323, 504, 336 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. The private respondents No. 2 to 4 pleaded guilty on the same day, inspired by the spirit of the Lok Adalat on the very day. 3. The learned trial Court, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, circumstances of the accused, their antecedents, character and other relevant considerations, convicted them for the offence above and instead of sentencing them at once, entitled the benefit of probation. At the same time, they were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards the cost of proceedings, out of which Rs. 10,000/- was to be paid to the complainant, who is the petitioner before this Court. The benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act was extended to the accused.

4. The petitioner who seems to be victim of the case felt aggrieved of the judgment of the learned trial Court and thus, moved an appeal before the learned appellate Court.

5. The learned appellate Court heard the matter again and, whereafter, made modification in the order of sentence and enhanced the cost upon the respondents as well as the compensation to the victim.

6. This Court observes that there are no reasonable ground to interfere in the matter as learned counsel failed to convince this Court as to how why the benefit of probation cannot be granted to the accused respondents when there was no adverse report regarding their antecedents and character and further considering that the alleged offences do not contain punishment of more than seven years. Learned counsel for the petitioner also failed to point out any legal infirmity in the impugned orders.

7. There is no force in the present criminal revision petition.

8. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.

(FARJAND ALI),J

230-AnilKC/-