HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3266/2026 Insaf Ali S/o Allaharakha Sai, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Pundlota, Tehsil Degana, Dist. Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Saddik S/o Mehboob Sai, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Pundlota, Tehsil Degana, Dist Nagaur, Rajasthan.

3. Askar S/o Mehboob Sai, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Pundlota, Tehsil Degana, Dist Nagaur, Rajasthan.

4. Ahsan S/o Mehboob Sai, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Pundlota, Tehsil Degana, Dist Nagaur, Rajasthan.

5. Sabab S/o Askar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Pundlota, Tehsil Degana, Dist Nagaur, Rajasthan.

6. Chhotudi W/o Askar, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Pundlota, Tehsil Degana, Dist Nagaur, Rajasthan.

7. Dhanudi W/o Ahsan Ali, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Pundlota, Tehsil Degana, Dist Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd. Riyaz for Mr. Parvez Khan Moyal.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

Conclusion of Arguments &

Reserved on : 06/05/2026 Pronounced on : 16/05/2026

1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the BNSS has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 05.02.2026 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Merta in Criminal Revision No.37/2025 (19/2025), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Degana in Case No.82/2025 arising out of FIR No.175/2024, registered at P.S. Degana, was affirmed.

2. Brief facts are that initially an FIR No.175/2024 was lodged by the petitioner against the respondents No.2 to 7 for the offence under Sections 143, 447, 427 & 379 of the IPC, alleging that on 22.06.2024, the private respondents attacked the petitioner at his home, committed robbery and even unfastened the temporary structure.

2.1 After investigation, a challan was filed against the private respondents only for the commission of an offence under Section 427 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the final report submitted by the police, the petitioner filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.06.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision petition was filed, which also came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated

05.02.2026.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the courts below have committed serious error in not accepting the petitioner’s contention with regard to the fact that offence committed by the respondents was not confined to Section 427 of the IPC, but offences under Sections 143, 447 & 379 of the IPC are too made out. He argued that both the courts below have proceeded absolutely in mechanical manner and have not appreciated the submissions made at the behest of the petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the submissions as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It is to be noted that in the present case at the first instance, the investigation was carried out by one Ramjeevan, Head Constable. Later, the investigation was transferred to Deputy Superintendent of Police and after recording the statement of witnesses, it was found that offence under Section 427 of the IPC is made out against the respondents, however, no offence under Sections 447 and 379 of the IPC was made out.

6.1. It is also to be noted that thereafter, further investigation was made by another officer namely Shri Mahipal (RPS), who on investigation concluded that offences under Sections 447, 379, 427 & 34 of the IPC are made out. Being aggrieved by the said conclusion as arrived by the investigating officer, S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.6194/2024 was filed by the private respondents. The said criminal misc. petition was disposed of v