[2026:RJ-JD:11125]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 418/2026

1. Trilok Dan S/o Sambhu Dan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Olecha, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.

2. Dalpat Dan S/o Kushal Dan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Olecha, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.

3. Lakh Dan S/o Jugat Dan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Olecha, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Trilok Dan S/o Bhawar Dan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Olecha, Presently Living At Dan Ji Ki Hodi, Tehsil And District Barmer.

2. Bhawar Dan S/o Amba Dan, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Village Olecha, Presently Living At Dan Ji Ki Hodi, Tehsil And District Barmer.

3. Champa Devi W/o Dsan Dan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Olecha, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.

4. Moti Dan S/o Amba Dan, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Olecha, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.

5. Murad Dan S/o Moti Dan, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Village Olecha, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.

6. Melu Dan S/o Doonga Dan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Olecha, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.

7. Roop Dan S/o Jawahar Dan, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Olecha, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer.

8. Hamir Dan S/o Gordhan Dan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Olecha, Tehsil Shiv, District Barmer. 9. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siddharth Karwasara For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Sharma Mr. Dalpat Singh Mr. Abhimanyu Khatri HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

06/03/2026 The present Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS, being aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Barmer.

The contention of the petitioner is that the revisional court ought to have dismissed the revision petition as not maintainable on the ground that the order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the learned trial court appointing a receiver was merely an interlocutory order, and therefore a revision against the same was not maintainable. It is further submitted that, even otherwise, the revisional court ought not to have interfered on merits.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order passed by the learned revisional court is a well-reasoned and speaking order and does not call for any interference by this Court.

This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the order dated 02.08.2023 as well as the order passed by the revisional court dated 05.01.2026.

So far as the first contention of the petitioner is concerned, this Court is of the view that the order dated 02.08.2023 passed by the learned trial court regarding appointment of a receiver under Section 146 Cr.P.C. cannot be said to be a purely interlocutory order. The said order, being in the nature of a final order with regard to appointment of a receiver, was therefore amenable to revisional jurisdiction and the revision petition was maintainable.

With regard to the submissions on merits, this Court has considered the order dated 05.01.2026 passed by the learned revisional court and finds the same to be a reasoned and speaking order. The revisional court has duly taken into consideration the contentions raised by both the parties and thereafter came to the conclusion that civil proceedings between the parties are already pending and, in absence of any immediate apprehension of breach of peace, there was no justification for appointment of a receiver.

In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order dated 05.01.2026 and the present Criminal Misc.

Petition is accordingly dismissed.

However, as the original proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are still pending adjudication, the learned trial court is directed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.

It is further clarified that any observations made by the learned revisional court are only of a prima facie nature and shall not affect the adjudi