##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:13565]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8938/2025

Gangabishan Singh S/o Sh Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 76 Years, Behind Nagar Nigam, Rawato Ka Mohalla, Ps Sadar, District

Bikaner.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

2. Madan Singh S/o Laxmi Narayan, Behind Nagar Nigam Rawato Ka Mohalla Ps Sadar Bikaner

3. Sharda Kanwar W/o Madan Singh, Behind Nagar Nigam Rawato Ka Mohalla Ps Sadar Bikaner

4. Ram Singh Asi Investigation Officer, Ps Sadar Bikaner Through Superintendent Of Police Bikaner

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Kumar Sharma Ms. Ayushi Parihar

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

23/03/2026 The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed

challenging the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner in FIR No. 492/2016, whereby the negative final report submitted by the Investigating Agency was accepted. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 5, Bikaner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 55/2023, whereby the revision petition preferred against the aforesaid order

was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Investigating Agency, despite filing a negative final report, has

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 07:50:54 PM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 04:18:54 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13565] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-8938/2025] clearly indicated that offences against the accused-respondent under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC were made

out.

It is submitted that upon perusal of the negative final report,

a protest petition was filed and the matter was argued at length. It is further submitted that the material available on record clearly discloses the commission of offences; however, the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, illegally accepted the negative final report. Learned counsel further submits that the revisional Court also failed to properly consider the facts of the case and the sufficient material available on record to take cognizance, and

wrongly dismissed the revision petition.

He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders be set aside

and cognizance be directed to be taken against the respondent.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

This Court has considered the arguments advanced by

learned counsel for the petitioner and has gone through the

impugned orders dated 07.09.2021 and 04.02.2025.

Upon filing of the negative final report, the learned

Magistrate took cognizance of the protest petition filed by the petitioner and examined the matter in detail. Upon consideration of the material on record, the learned Magistrate found that no prima facie offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC was made out. Consequently, the protest petition was

dismissed and the negative final report was accepted.

(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 07:50:54 PM)

(Downloaded on 02/04/2026 at 04:18:54 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:13565] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-8938/2025]

The learned revisional Court also considered all the

averments raised by the petitioner in detail and, based on the material available on record, found that no case for taking cognizance of the alleged offences was made out. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The material on record has been properly appreciated by the learned Magistrate as well as the revisional Court, and it has been rightly concluded that no case for taking cognizance is made out. The order of the learned Trial Court as well as the order of the Revisional Court discloses reasons and analysis of the relevant

considerations and reflects conscious application of mind.

Further, Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

enacts a clear prohibition against entertaining a second revision at the behest of the same party. This