Sunday, 17, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Deepak Gupta vs State And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 2129 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 2129 Raj
Judgement Date : 10 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Deepak Gupta vs State And Anr on 10 July, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:29168]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
             S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 106/2018

Deepak Gupta S/o Shri Vijay Kumar, B/c Agrawal, Resident Of
218, Vinoba Basti, Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       The State Of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor
2.       Sita Devi W/o Late Shri Krishna Lal, B/c Jat, Resident Of
         Chak 6-E, Choti, Sri Ganganagar.
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Rajendra Charan
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sunil Mehta
                                Mr. Sri Ram Chaudhary, AGA



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

Judgment Reserved On : 15/04/2025 Judgment Pronounced On : 10/07/2025

1. The instant criminal revision petition has been preferred by

the petitioner against the order dated 16.12.2017 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar in

Criminal Revision No. 52/2016 whereby the revision petition was

allowed and order dated 13.04.2016 passed by learned Sub-

Divisional Magistrate, Sriganganagar in Criminal Case No. 71/2009

was set aside whereby the possession of the said plot was handed

over to the petitioner.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the SHO, Police

Station Sadar, Sri Ganganagar, submitted a complaint under

Section 145 Cr.P.C. regarding a land dispute concerning a plot

[2025:RJ-JD:29168] (2 of 3) [CRLR-106/2018]

measuring 20x60 located at Chak 6-E Choti, citing apprehension

of breach of peace due to tension between the parties.

Consequently, proceedings were initiated, and notices were issued

to both parties to produce relevant documents. Vide order dated

14.09.2009, the learned SDM decided the matter against

Respondent No. 2, which was affirmed by the Revisional Court on

08.02.2010. The said orders were challenged before this Court,

which remanded the matter for fresh adjudication based on

evidence. Both parties appeared before the SDM and led their

evidence, following which the SDM appointed a receiver on

16.12.2013. This order was again set aside, and the matter was

remanded. After fresh notices and a full hearing, the SDM passed

an order on 13.04.2016 in favor of the petitioner, and possession

was handed over accordingly. Aggrieved by this, Respondent No. 2

preferred a revision, which was allowed by the Revisional Court

vide order dated 16.12.2017, remanding the matter again for

fresh consideration. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this

remand order, has preferred the present revision petition.

3. Heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties

and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well

as perused the orders passed by the courts below and material

available on record.

4. Upon perusal of the material available on record, it is

evident that learned SDM erred in proceeding beyond the scope of

Section 145 Cr.P.C. by assessing the ownership and validity of

documents rather than determining actual possession on the date

of dispute. The focus in such proceedings is confined to identifying

[2025:RJ-JD:29168] (3 of 3) [CRLR-106/2018]

which party was in possession or was wrongfully dispossessed.

The learned SDM's reliance on virtual possession and documentary

strength, without a clear finding on actual possession, renders the

impugned order legally unsustainable. Therefore, in the interest of

justice, the Revisional Court remanded the matter back for fresh

consideration strictly on the question of possession, based on

evidence on record, within the framework of Section 145 Cr.P.C.

and directed that the question of possession must be decided

within the period of 6 months.

5. In view of the above, this Court finds it appropriate to uphold

the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 1,

Sriganganagar. As directed in the revisional court's order, the

matter is remanded back to the learned SDM, who shall decide

the question of possession within six months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order.

6. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed.

7. Stay petition stands disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 72 mamta/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter