[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balram vs Brajlal (2026:Rj-Jd:16552) on 9 April, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2026:RJ-JD:16552]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1549/2022
Balram S/o Sh. Hajariram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Nyolkhi,
Teh. Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Brajlal S/o Sh. Bhuraram, R/o Nyolkhi, Teh. Rawatsar,
Dist. Hanumangarh (Raj.).
2. Aashu Singh Shekhawat, be then Conservator Of Forests,
Hanumangarh, At Present Residing At Near Narendra
Bhawan, Kailashpuri Bikaner, Dist. Bikaner.
3. Lal Chand Bajoliya, Be Then Ranger Area Forest Officer,
Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumagnarh, At Present Residing At
W.no. 23, Near Ramlila Maidan, Behind Axis Bank
Rawatsar, Dist. Hanumangarh.
4. Lekharam Baraij, Be Then Executive Engineer Lift Division
First. I.g.n.p Rawatsar, At Present Residing At Near Chuna
Phatak, Hanumangarh Junction, Dist. Hanumangarh.
5. Ashok Kumar, Be Then Halka Patwari, Village Nyolkhi,
Teh. Rawatar, Dist. Hanumangarh, At Present Posted At
Office Of Superintending Engineer Water Resources
Division Ajmer, Dist. Ajmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.R. Saharan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy. GA
Mr. NL Joshi with
Ms. Kirti Pareek
Mr. Shaitan Singh with
Mr. Udit Talwar for
Mr. RS Choudhary for R/4
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
09/04/2026
1. The instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order dated 09.12.2021 passed by
learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (Prevention of Corruption
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:05:05 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16552] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1549/2022]
Act), Sri Ganganagar whereby, complaint filed by the petitioner
was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that a criminal complaint was
submitted by the petitioner in the Court of learned Sessions
Judge, Special Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Bikaner. On
15.12.2012, the said complaint was sent for preliminary enquiry
to the Office of Addl. Superintendent of Police, ACB Hanumangarh.
After investigation, enquiry report was submitted by Addl. SP
opining that no offences under the provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act is made out against the accused persons. At this
stage, an application was moved by the petitioner/complainant for
further enquiry and said application was considered and dismissed
by learned Sessions Judge, Special Court (Prevention of
Corruption Act), Bikaner vide order dated 04.05.2019 and the
matter was posted for evidence of petitioner/complainant.
Thereafter, several opportunities were granted to the
petitioner/complainant to produce his evidence, but he did not
avail the opportunities and finally on 09.12.2021, learned trial
Court dismissed the complaint preferred by the
petitioner/complainant.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are
ample evidence available on record that offences under the
Prevention of Corruption Act are made out as in order to extend
the benefit to the accused persons, there was manipulation in the
revenue record, which is evident from the enquiry report
submitted by the Addl. S.P. Learned counsel further submits that
no proper opportunity was granted to the petitioner to produce
evidence and now in the interest of justice, one more opportunity
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:05:05 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16552] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1549/2022]
may be given and matter may be remanded to the learned trial
Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and counsels
appearing for the respondents have opposed the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that
it is evident from the record that several opportunities were
granted to the petitioner to produce his evidence but he failed to
avail the same. Therefore, learned trial Court has not committed
any error in dismissing the complaint filed by the
petitioner/complainant. They submitted that impugned order is
just and proper and does not suffer any infirmity, illegality and
perversity.
5. I have considered the submissions made at bar and scanned
the material available on record including the order dated
04.05.2019 whereby application filed by the
petitioner/complainant for further enquiry was rejected and
impugned order dated 09.12.2021 whereby the complaint filed by
the petitioner/complainant was dismissed.
6. Perusal of the impugned order dated 09.12.2021 would
reveals that on 04.05.2019, application filed by the petitioner for
further enquiry was dismissed and he was granted opportunity to
produce his evidence in support of the complaint. Thereafter,
matter remained pending till 09.12.2021 for about two and half
years and even during this period, no evidence was produced by
the petitioner/complainant. Since proper opportunities were
granted to the petitioner to lead or produce his evidence, but he
failed to avail such opportunities, therefore, in my considered
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:05:05 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16552] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1549/2022]
opinion, learned trial Court has not committed any error in
dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner.
7. In view of the above, impugned order dated 09.12.2021
does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or perversity. Hence,
the instant Criminal Misc. Petition is dismissed.
8. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stand
dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
22-amit/-
(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 11:05:05 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
