HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6104/2025 Jagmal S/o Shri Harjiram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Vijaynagar, Post Neemla Police Station Tehla, Alwar, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2. Smt. Kavita Meena W/o Shri Jairam Meena, R/o Village Vijaynagar, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Gausinga Mr. Kumar Byadwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

18/11/2025

1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate Rajgarh, Alwar by which the application submitted by the complainant-respondent under Section 210 BNS has been allowed and the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections

126(2), 115(2), 74 and 3(5) BNS.

2. Aggrieved by this aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioner before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, Alwar, however the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 06.08.2025.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by both the orders passed by the Courts below, the instant misc. petition has been filed before this Court under Section 528 BNSS.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an FIR No. 247/2024 was registered by the complainant with the Police Station Tehla, District Alwar for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 324(4) and 351(2) BNS against the petitioner and several persons and the matter was thoroughly examined by the Investigating Agency and the role of the petitioner was not found to be proved that is why charge-sheet was submitted against only two accused persons Dilram and Harikishan. Counsel submits that a Final Report (Negative) was submitted qua the petitioner, as his involvement was not found to be proved when the statements of the witnesses were recorded. Counsel submits that an application under Section 210 BNSS was submitted by the complainant against the aforesaid Final Report but without following the procedure contained under Chapter 15 of the BNSS, straightaway cognizance has been taken against the petitioner and without discarding the statement of the Investigating Officer which was recorded. Counsel further submits that the instant case is a case of pure civil nature and even the material witnesses have not named the petitioner in the alleged incident, hence the orders passed by the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bachan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (while deciding the S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition no. 874/2015, on 13.10.2025) and the judgment passed by Principal Seat, at Jodhpur in the case of Niraj Goyal and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (while deciding S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 399/2023, decided on 13.04.2023 and the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukhtar Zaidi Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. while deciding the SLP(CRL.)No. 9122/2021 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 18.04.2024.

5. Lastly, he argued that in-fact the complainant has submitted an application under Section 210 BNSS before the concerned Magistrate against the petitioner for taking cognizance but without recording his statement under Chapter 15 of the BNSS, straightaway the cognizance has been taken against him which is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the order is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukhtar Zaidi (Supra).

6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that after completion of investigation, the police has submitted a charge-sheet against against persons i.e. Dilram and Harikishan. T