##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5776/2020

Virendra Singh Yadav S/o Shri Sheer Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Dhani Bantawali Tan Dolat Singhpura Police Station

Neemrana Distt. Alwar.

----Petitioner/Complainant Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

----Respondent/Non-Petitioner

2. Abhi Singh S/o Shri Bhoop Singh, R/o Dhani Bantawali Tan, Dolat Singhpura Police Station Neemrana Distt.

Alwar.

3. Sartaj S/o Shri Bhoop Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dhani Bantawali Tan Dolat Singh Pura Police Station

Neemrana Distt. Alwar.

4. Naveen S/o Shri Sartaj Singh, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Dhani Bantawali Tan Dolat Singh Pura Police Station

Neemrana Distt. Alwar.

5. Sandeep Kumar @ Fakru S/o Shri Dayaram, Aged About

28 Years, R/o Gokulpur Police Station Behror Distt. Alwar.

6. Naval Yadav S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay, R/o Gokulpur, Police Station Behror Distt. Alwar.

7. Arvindh S/o Shri Kailash, R/o Gokulpur, Police Station Behror Distt. Alwar.

8. Mukesh S/o Shri Prahlad, R/o Gokulpur, Police Station Behror Distt. Alwar.

----Respondent/Accused

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Aditya Raj for Mr.Mohit Balwada

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP Mr.Ankit Kumar Sharma with

Ms.Manju Yadav for Mr.Gaurav Gupta

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:13:44 AM)

(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 03:02:07 PM)

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5776/2020]

01/04/2026

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 23.10.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Behror, District Alwar by which the application submitted by the complainant- petitioner under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against

the accused-respondents has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant- petitioner submits that there is plenty evidence available on record against the accused-respondents and in spite of the above, they have not been charge-sheeted by the Investigating Agency, hence, under these circumstances, an application under Section 193 Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Court below for taking

cognizance against them.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused- respondents submits that the aforesaid order was passed on 23.10.2020 and much water has flown since then and thereafter, in the meantime, statements of several prosecution witnesses have been recorded and the trial has proceeded, hence, under the changed circumstances, the instant petition has become

infructuous.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and

perused the material available on record.

5. This fact is not in dispute that the impugned order was passed on 23.10.2020 and the application submitted by the complainant-petitioner under Section 193 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against the accused-respondents has been rejected. This fact is also not in dispute that no interim order is operating in

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:13:44 AM)

(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 03:02:07 PM)

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5776/2020]

favour of the either side since then and in the meantime, around six years have passed and trial has proceeded and the statements

of some prosecution witnesses have also been recorded.

6. This Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition granting liberty to the complainant-petitioner to submit an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. before the Trial Court. In case, such application is submitted by the petitioner, it is expected from the Trial Court to decide the same strictly in accordance with

law, after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the sides.

7. The instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand

disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Aayush Sharma /35

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:13:44 AM)

(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 03:02:07 PM)