HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 9301/2025 Shhabuddin S/o Jmal Kha, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Chokin Ki Dhani Jaspali, Pipar City, Jodhpur Raj.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Moti Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.S. Jodha, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

13/01/2026 The present criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved against the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by the learned ACJM Pipar City, Distt. Jodhpur by which application filed by the petitioner under Section 193(9) BNSS has been rejected. The petitioner had filed the application seeking reinvestigation/further investigation in the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the matter in hand, the FIR was registered against two persons, but however after investigation, challan was only filed against accused Alla Rakh and the name of Barkat Ali was omitted despite there being sufficient documentary and oral evidence, and apart from that, the accused Alla Rakh was also exonerated of offence under Section 307 BNS. It is stated that in the application, all the facts were brought to the knowledge of the court, but however despite that illegally, the application has been rejected without application of mind.

This court has considered the arguments of the petitioner as well as perused the order of the learned trial court and the material placed on record. Having considered the same, it is seen that the trial court while considering the application of the petitioner has duly applied its mind and has considered each and every contention raised by the petitioner. Learned trial court has assigned cogent reasons for deciding the application. It is seen that the court has duly considered the challan papers which were filed and thereafter, did not find it appropriate to send the matter for further investigation.

The main grievance of the petitioner is that the name of the other accused Barkat Ali should have been forwarded to the court in the charge-sheet along with Alla Rakh. The cognizance of the offence has not been taken as yet and the petitioner can always file a protest petition and place the evidence on record for taking cognizance against Barkat Ali as well. But, so far as the application under Section 193(9) BNSS is concerned, this court finds no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned trial court dated 03.10.2025.

Therefore, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed.

However, it is seen that the petitioner has already filed an application under Section 210 BNSS. Certainly, the learned trial court is expected to consider and decide the same on its merits and proceed further in accordance with law. The observations made by the learned trial court while deciding the application under Section 193(9) BNSS as well as by this court shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner when his application under Section 210 BNSS is considered by the learned trial court.

(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J

157-architp/-