[2026:RJ-JP:16490]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 863/2019 Bharti Hexacom Ltd (Airtel), K-21, Malviya Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur, Through Its Authorised Representative.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP.

2. Shri Dhanne Singh S/o Late Shri Isharam, R/o Gram Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar, Raj.

3. Shri Bhagwan Gurjar S/o Late Shri Kheeva Ram, R/o Gram Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar, Raj.

4. Shri Banwari Lal S/o Shri Devi Dutt, R/o Gram Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar, Raj.

5. Shri Bajrang Lal S/o Shri Hanmanaram, R/o Gram Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar, Raj.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 377/2019

1. Bajranglal S/o Shri Hanmanaram(deceased), Through His Legal Heirs

2. Yashoda Devi W/o Late Shri Bajranglal, R/o Village Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar, Raj.

3. Satyanarayan S/o Late Shri Bajranglal, R/o Village Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar, Raj.

4. Ramesh Sharma S/o Late Shri Bajranglal, R/o Village Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar, Raj.

5. Sohani Devi D/o Late Shri Bajranglal, R/o Village Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar, Raj.

6. Jamoti Devi D/o Late Shri Bajranglal, R/o Village Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar, Raj.

7. Saraswati Devi D/o Late Shri Bajranglal, R/o Village Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar, Raj.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Dhanne Singh S/o Late Shri Ishar Ram, R/o Village Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar, Raj.

2. Shiv Bhagwan Gurjar S/o Late Shri Khinvaram, R/o Village Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar, Raj.

3. Banwari Lal S/o Shri Devi Dutt, R/o Village Dadiya, Tehsil And District Sikar, Raj.

4. Manager, Airtel Mobile Company, Office in front of Court, Mahariya Bhawan, Tehsil and District Sikar, Raj. 5. SHO Police Station Dadiya, District Sikar.

6. Tehsildar, Tehsil Sikar.

7. State of Rajasthan, Through PP.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Maloo Mr. Naveen Dhuven, Mr. Vishal Singh Jadoun, Head-Legal and Mr. Achyut Vitthal Agarwal, Manager-

Legal for the company.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Rajat Ranjan with Mr. Rohan Agarwal Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP with Ms. Neha Goyal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

18/04/2026

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for both the parties, arguments have been heard together and these petitions are decided by this common order.

2. Both the petitions have been preferred against the impugned order dated 24.04.2013 passed by the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikar in Criminal Case No. 23/2013 under Section 138 of Cr.P.C. and a direction has been issued to the petitioners to remove the mobile tower from the subject land.

3. Learned counsels submits that before passing the aforesaid order, mandatory provisions contained under Section 138 Cr.P.C. were not followed, as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners & the petitioner were never served with any kind of notice. Counsels further submits that improper address of the petitioners was mentioned in the cause title of the complaint filed by the respondents under Section 133 Cr.P.C. They further submits that the above facts were brought into the notice of the Revisional Court when the order dated 24.04.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sikar was assailed before the Revisional Court i.e. the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Sikar. They further submits that an interim order dated 16.05.2013 was noted in the ordersheet stating that compliance of Section 138 Cr.P.C. was not made.

4. Counsels further submits that when final arguments were heard by the Revisional Court, this fact that the petitioners have not been granted an opportunity of hearing and the mandatory provisions contained under Section 138 Cr.P.C. have not been followed with, was not taken into consideration and the revision petition submitted by the petitioners has been rejected.

5. Counsels fu