[2026:RJ-JP:8090]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2860/2012 Ramu S/o Late Shri Ramkishan R/o Village Golyabas @ Manpur Devri Police Station Mansarovar Jaipur Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through PP

2. Roopnarain S/o Sualal

3. Sitaram S/o Sualal

4. Radheyshyam S/o Sualal

5. Sureah S/o Roopnarain

6. Mukesh S/o Sitaram 7. Babulal S/o Balsagar

8. Manish S/o Sitaram All resident of Village Golyabas @ Manpur Devri Police Station Mansarovar Jaipur Tehsil Sanganer District Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ran Vijay Singh For State : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

20/02/2026

1. Present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed challenging order dated 25.04.2012 passed by Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 8, Jaipur, whereby revision petition preferred by petitioner was rejected, as well as order dated 03.11.2010 passed by Court of Additional District Magistrate, East, Jaipur, whereby complaint filed by petitioner under Section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed on account of apprehension that respondents were attempting to dispossess petitioner from his ancestral land. It was contended that exercise of powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was necessary to prevent any breach of peace and to avoid a law and order situation at the site in question.

3. Learned Additional District Magistrate, after calling for the requisite report and examining the material available on record, observed that in respect of the land in question, interim orders directing maintenance of status quo had already been passed by competent Revenue Court as well as by this Court vide its order dated 21.08.2007. Keeping the same in consideration, learned Additional District Magistrate held that passing any order under Section 145(1) Cr.P.C., including appointment of a Receiver, would amount to violation of said subsisting interim orders; consequently, application filed under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

4. Revision petition filed against said order was also dismissed by learned Revisional Court, which concurred with the findings recorded by learned Additional Magistrate in the impugned order.

5. Challenging both the said orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that mere existence of interim orders passed by Competent Courts cannot ipso facto constitute a ground for declining exercise of jurisdiction under Section 145 Cr.P.C. It was urged that despite the subsistence of said interim orders, respondents were attempting to dispossess petitioner from the land in question, which necessitated the filing of said application under section 145 Cr.P.C. However, learned counsel submitted, this aspect has not been duly appreciated by learned Courts below.

6. It was further argued that exercise of powers under Section 145 Cr.P.C. in the case of petitioner was essential for maintaining peace and preventing breach of law and order, but said application was neither properly entertained nor adjudicated upon in accordance with law by learned Courts below.

7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioner has failed to establish existence of any situation giving rise to a real apprehension of breach of peace over the land in question. It was contended that application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. was filed merely to circumvent and frustrate the effect of status quo orders already in operation.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor also contended that petitioner has failed to demonstrate any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in orders passed by learned Courts below. Therefore, no interference by this Court is warranted in present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

9. It was also submitted that present criminal miscell