##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:15014]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2247/2026

Rukma Devi W/o Tulcharam, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Ahiro Ka Bas, Sudrasan, Tehsil Molasar, District Didwana Kuchaman.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

2. Omprakash S/o Tulcha Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ahiro Ka Bas, Sudrasan, Tehsil Molasar, District Didwana

Kuchaman

3. Suresh Kumar S/o Tulcha Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ahiro Ka Bas, Sudrasan, Tehsil Molasar, District Didwana

Kuchaman

4. Santosh Kumar S/o Tulcha Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/

o Ahiro Ka Bas, Sudrasan, Tehsil Molasar, District Didwana Kuchaman

5. Manglaram S/o Tulcha Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ahiro Ka Bas, Sudrasan, Tehsil Molasar, District Didwana

Kuchaman

6. Prem D/o Tulcha Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ahiro Ka Bas, Sudrasan, Tehsil Molasar, District Didwana Kuchaman

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

01/04/2026 The instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been

preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), being aggrieved by the order dated 02.02.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Didwana in Criminal Revision No. 15/2025, whereby the learned Sessions

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 05:59:17 PM)

(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 10:06:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15014] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2247/2026] Judge affirmed the order dated 04.07.2025 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Didwana in Criminal Case No. 293/2025, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for

release of the warehouse (godown).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the

present case, the FIR was registered against the petitioner’s sons, Omprakash and Suresh. The allegation is that they purchased wheat and other grains from agriculturists but failed to make payment. These grains were stored in a godown constructed on the land of the petitioner, which is stated to be joint khatedari land along with the accused persons. It is submitted that since the incident, the godown along with the goods stored therein was

seized, and the material remained lying in the godown.

It is further submitted that the petitioner thereafter filed an

application for release of the godown, which came to be dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 04.07.2025 on the ground that the trial was pending and, therefore, the godown

could not be de-seized at that stage.

So far as the grains are concerned, the learned Magistrate

directed that the same be auctioned and the proceeds be deposited in the treasury. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which also came to be dismissed by the learned revisional Court without assigning adequate reasons. The petitioner submits that she is not aggrieved by the auction of

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 05:59:17 PM)

(Downloaded on 06/04/2026 at 10:06:27 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15014] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2247/2026] the grains, but only by the rejection of her application for release

of the godown.

This Court has considered the submissions made and has

gone through the impugned orders as well as the material

available on record, including the final report.

In the present case, the dispute pertains to non-payment to

agriculturists for the grains purchased by the accused persons. The godown was seized only because the goods were stored therein. Admittedly, the grains have already been ordered to be auctioned by the learned trial Court, against which the petitioner has no grievance. It is also not in dispute that the godown stands on the land of the petitioner. Even if the same is a joint family

property, the petitioner has a right to use the same.

Merely because the alleged goods were stored in the godown

cannot be a ground for seizing the godown itself. The godown cannot, in any manner, be