##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:47606]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 386/2026 CNR: RJHC010502752026 | URN: CRLMA / 631U / 2026 Ganga Ram S/o Sagata Ram, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Near B.r.

Birla School, Pal Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Superintendent Of Police, Acb Jaisalmer

3. Superintendent Of Police, Acb Jodhpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Mathur Mr. Harshvardhan Thanvi Mr. Kailash Prajapat For Respondent(s) : Mr.Narendra Gehlot,Dy.G.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

Reportable-

29/09/2026

1. The present application has been preferred seeking recall of the order dated 19.03.2026 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 8087/2025, whereby the petition seeking quashing of FIR No.30/2023 dated 08.02.2023 registered at ABC Choki Jaisalmer, District Jaisalmer for offences under Sections 13(1)(B) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, came to be disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the grounds before the learned trial Court at the stage of seeking discharge. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that the aforesaid order came to be passed on the premise that, after filing of the charge-sheet, a judicial order taking cognizance of the alleged offences had also been passed, whereas, according to the order-sheet of the learned trial Court, cognizance had not been taken against the present petitioners and, therefore, the very factual premise on which the petition came to be disposed of was incorrect.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, during the course of hearing of the aforesaid petition, it was stated that the charge-sheet had been filed before the learned trial Court and that cognizance had also been taken, and the relevant order-sheet was produced before this Court. Proceeding on the said submission, this Court, vide order dated 19.03.2026, recorded that a judicial order of taking cognizance had been passed and, on that premise, disposed of the petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioners to raise their grounds before the learned trial Court at the stage of discharge. It is now submitted that the order-sheet of the learned trial Court does not disclose any order taking cognizance against the present petitioners. It is further pointed out that the prosecution sanction pertaining to co- accused Kailash Chandra had been stayed by this Court and that there is no recording in the relevant proceedings indicating that cognizance had been taken against the present petitioners.

3. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

4. Having considered the submissions and having perused the material placed on record, this Court finds that the controversy raised in the present application is required to be examined from the perspective of the manner in which the earlier petition came to be disposed of. The order dated 19.03.2026 did not adjudicate upon the substantive grounds raised in the petition for quashing of the FIR. No finding on the merits of the challenge to the criminal proceedings was recorded, nor was any issue arising for determination in the petition considered and finally decided by this Court. Rather, the petition came to be disposed of on the basis of the submission made on behalf of the prosecution that cognizance had already been taken by the learned trial Court.

5. It is trite that recall of an order and review of an order operate in distinct fields. Where a matter has already been adjudicated upon on merits, the power of review cannot be employed merely to secure a fresh adjudication on the same material or to substitute one view for another. The present case, however, stands on a materially different footing. The substantive controversy raised in the original petition was never adjudicated upon. The petition was disposed of on a factu