[2026:RJ-JP:11533]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5568/2014 Shiv Kumar Arora S/o Late Shri Girdhari Lal Arora, Retired Zonal Manager, R.S.R.T.C., Sikar Depot, R/o A-50-B, Jay Ambey Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Raj.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through P.P.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Poonam Rajawat for Mr. Ankul Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

18/03/2026

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 18.11.2014 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kota in Criminal Revision Petition No.371/2014 by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Kota in FR No.62/2009 and FIR No.177/2007 registered with the Police Station Nayapura, Kota has been rejected by treating the same as time barred.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner pleaded no instructions from the petitioner.

3. Looking to the fact that the instant criminal misc. petition is lying pending before this Court since last more than 12 years, this Court deems it just and proper to look into the matter.

4. Perusal of the order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Kota indicates that in the final report “negative” which was submitted in favour of the petitioner, an allegation was levelled against the accused- petitioner that he has outraged complainant’s modesty. The Final Report submitted by the Police was not accepted and the protest petition submitted by the complainant-respondent was accepted and accordingly the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 354 IPC vide order dated 13.06.2011.

5. It appears that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a time barred revision petition was submitted after a lapse of three years by the petitioner before the Revisional Court, i.e., District & Sessions Court, Kota along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The said revision petition was rejected by treating the same as time barred, as no justified reason was assigned by the petitioner in his application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the delay caused in submitting the said revision petition.

6. This Court has perused the reasons mentioned in the application submitted along-with the paper-book, wherein no justified reason has been assigned for filing the said revision petition after a lapse of more than three years. Since no justified reason has been assigned in condoning the said delay and no satisfactory explanation has been mentioned for the same, the Revisional Court has not committed an error in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner by treating the same as time barred by passing just and cogent order, which does not require any interference of this Court.

7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands rejected. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/31