HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No v. 1. Central Bureau Of Investigation, Through Standing Public Prosecutor 2

Ishwar Dayal Son Of Srichand, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Sikroi Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1598/2015 Ishwar Dayal S/o Shri Srichand, R/o Sikrori, Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P Darab Singh S/o Shri Keshar Dev, R/o Salempur Police Station Nadbai District Bharatpur Lokendra S/o Digambar Singh Satish S/o Arjun Singh, Mahesh S/o Khushiram,

5. All resident Pichumar, Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan)

6. Seetu @ Bhagwan Sahai S/o Shri Jahan Singh, R/o Ramnagar, Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj) ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:22246] (2 of 7) [CRLR-431/2014] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta with Mr. Bijayant Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shyam Singh Yadav, Spl. PP Mr. T.L. Pandey HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 23/05/2025 Order

1. These two revision petitions were filed in a matter relating to Sessions Case No.17/2013 pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur.

2. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.431/2014 is filed by petitioners accused (1) Badan Singh Son of Hubb Lal (2) Bijendra Singh Son of Sobha Ram (3) Jagannath Son of Sobha Ram (4) Dinesh Son of Ballu and (5) Jitendra Son of Sujan aggrieved from order dated 13.03.2014 whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur, Court has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Section 193 of CrPC on an application filed by respondent No.2-complainant whereas S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1598/2015 is filed by the complainant-petitioner Ishwar Dayal against order dated 28.09.2015 passed by learned trial Court under Section 309(2) of CrPC whereby the trial Court has allowed the application of (1) Darab Singh (2) Lokendra (3) Satish (4) Mahesh and (5) Seetu @ Bhagwan Sahai and directed their release till disposal of the challenge before the High Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners (accused) in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.431/2014 submitted that initially a report was registered at PS Kumher, District Bharatpur. During investigation, [2025:RJ-JP:22246] (3 of 7) [CRLR-431/2014] the complainant has filed a petition to transfer the investigation to CBI and same was allowed by this Hon’ble Court on 14.02.2013. He submitted that in the meanwhile, the police has arrested certain accused and due to non-filing of charge-sheet by police, there was an apprehension that they may be released on default bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC. Thereafter, the complainant has again approached this Hon’ble Court and on 04.03.2013 a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court directed for filing charge-sheet by police and also by CBI. He further submitted that afterwards the CBI has filed a charge-sheet and there were serious discrepancies in the charge-sheet firstly filed by SHO, PS Kumher and secondly by the CBI. He also submitted that again the complainant has approached Hon’ble Court for clarification and on dated

20.04.2015, this Court has clarified that the trial Court would proceed in the case based on charge-sheet filed by the CBI. He submitted that the order of clarification by this Court was challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court but SLP was dismissed. He further submitted that in the meanwhile, the trial Court on basis of charge-sheet by SHO, Police Station Kumher, has passed an order of cognizance against the petitioners on dated

13.03.2014 though they were not forwarded by CBI to face trial. Learned counsel submitted that the order passed by the trial Court is based on material forwarded by SHO P.S. Kumher and same is contrary to the order passed by this Hon’ble Court. He further submitted that there is no material on record to take cognizance against the petitioners. [2025:RJ-JP:22246] (4 of 7) [CRLR-431/2014]

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent-complainant.

5. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that after passing of impugned order, a clarification was issued by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, it is appropriate that the matter may be remitted back to the trial Court for decision afresh qua the present accused petitioners. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners has no objection in case the matter is remitted back after setting aside impugned order for fresh decision by trial Court on an application under Section 193 CrPC filed by the complainant.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1598/2015 submitted that after disposal of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.431/2014, the order dated

28.09.2015 is required to be recalled and the trial Court be directed to proceed in accordance with law.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record.

8. The facts of the case indicate that for an incident of

02.12.2012, FIR No. 425/2012 was registered at PS Kumher on

03.12.2012. During investigation, Smt. Chanda Devi has filed a S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.223/2013 and on

14.02.2013, this Court has directed that investigation of the case be transferred to the CBI. In the meanwhile, the police acting in furtherance of investigation in FIR No.425/2012 has arrested some accused and for modification in order dated 14.02.2013, a S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.33/2013 is filed by Chanda Devi and on 04.03.2013, a Co-ordinate Bench by [2025:RJ-JP:22246] (5 of 7) [CRLR-431/2014] clarification order has directed police to submit its report under Section 173 of CrPC before expiry of 90 days but also directed CBI to initiate investigation. The CBI has also filed a charge-sheet in the matter after registration of FIR No.RC-5(S)/2013/CBI/SC.III dated 30.04.2013.

9. During pendency of both the charge-sheets, application under Section 193 CrPC was filed before the trial Court by respondent No.2-Complainant Ishwar Dayal. In the meanwhile, Chanda Devi has filed another Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.95/2014 for further clarification and on 20.04.2015 another Co-ordinate Bench has clarified that the trial Court would proceed in the case based on charge sheet filed by CBI. Aggrieved from the order dated 20.04.2015, a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.3858/2015 was filed by respondent No.2- complainant Ishwar Dayal but same was dismissed on 13.05.2015.

10. In the meanwhile, an application under Section 193 CrPC was allowed by the trial Court on 13.03.2014 and the trial Court has directed for taking cognizance against (1) Badan Singh Son of Hubb Lal (2) Bijendra Singh Son of Sobha Ram (3) Jagannath Son of Sobha Ram (4) Dinesh Son of Ballu and (5) Jeetender Son of Sujan under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 324, 336, 307, 302 of IPC.

11. A bail order dated 07.08.2015 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7210/2015 indicate that the trial Court in contravention of order dated 20.04.2015 has passed an order and an explanation is called from the Presiding Officer. [2025:RJ-JP:22246] (6 of 7) [CRLR-431/2014]

12. The facts in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.431/2014 clearly indicate that these petitioners were not chargesheeted by CBI and after clarification by this Court, the matter is continued on chargesheet filed by CBI. Therefore, it is appropriate to set aside order dated 13.03.2014 and remitted back for decision on application under Section 193 CrPC.

13. The trial Court while considering application under Section 309(2) of CrPC has passed an order dated 28.09.2015 wherein the trial Court on basis of order dated 20.04.2015 has opined that after order of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court accused (1) Darab Singh (2) Lokendra (3) Satish (4) Mahesh and (5) Seetu @ Bhagwan were not forwarded by CBI to face trial.

14. Having considering the fact that order of cognizance dated

13.03.2014 is passed by the trial Court before the clarification by this Court on 20.04.2015 and if someone has not been forwarded to face trial, then he cannot face trial unless a specific order of cognizance is passed against them either under Section 193 or under Section 319 of CrPC.

15. Having considering the material on record, it is apparent that after order dated 20.04.2015, this Court has directed the trial Court to proceed in the case based on charge-sheet filed by CBI and same was upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

16. The copy of charge-sheet dated 22.12.2013 clearly reflect that the CBI has recommended discharge of accused Sunil, Lokendra, Darab Singh, Mahesh, Satish, Bhagwan @ Seetu.

17. In view of order dated 20.04.2015, there is no perversity or illegality in the order dated 28.09.2015, therefore, the revision [2025:RJ-JP:22246] (7 of 7) [CRLR-431/2014] petition filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed, however, the complainant is at liberty to move an application to take cognizance against them, as per law.

18. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.431/2014 is hereby allowed and impugned order dated 13.03.2014 in Sessions Case No.17/2013 is set aside qua present petitioners. The application under Section 193 CrPC is remitted back to the trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with orders passed by this Court but without being influenced from earlier order dated 13.03.2014. It is expected from the trial Court to dispose of this application at earliest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

19. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1598/2015 is hereby dismissed.

20. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. MR/60-61 suppl. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J