[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhajandass vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5933) on 2 February, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:5933]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Appli No. 14/2025
1. Sohan Ram S/o Shri Deepa Ram, Aged About 72 Years, R/
o Village Lachdasar, Tehsil Ratangarh, Dist. Churu.
2. Panna Lal S/o Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Village Lachdasar, Tehsil Ratangarh, Dist. Churu.
3. Shanker Lal S/o Shri Bansidhar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Village Lachdasar, Tehsil Ratangarh, Dist. Churu.
4. Sohan Lal S/o Shri Tulcha Ram, Aged About 66 Years, R/o
Village Lachdasar, Tehsil Ratangarh, Dist. Churu.
5. Bhoma Das S/o Shri Heera Ram, Aged About 65 Years, R/
o Village Lachdasar, Tehsil Ratangarh, Dist. Churu.
6. Bhajan Das S/o Shri Fusa Ram, Aged About 66 Years, R/o
Village Lachdasar, Tehsil Ratangarh, Dist. Churu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rewatram S/o Shri Udaram, R/o Village Lachdasar, Tehsil
Ratangarh, Dist. Churu.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6267/2024
1. Bhajandass S/o Phoosdas Swami, Aged About 66 Years,
R/o Village Laachdser Tehsil Ratangarh Dist. Churu
2. Sohanram S/o Doparam, Aged About 77 Years, R/o
Village Laachdser Tehsil Ratangarh Dist. Churu
3. Sohan Ram S/o Tulcha Ram, Aged About 67 Years, R/o
Village Laachdser Tehsil Ratangarh Dist. Churu
4. Panna Lal S/o Sohan Ram, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
Village Laachdser Tehsil Ratangarh Dist. Churu
5. Bhoma Ram S/o Heera Lal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o
Village Laachdser Tehsil Ratangarh Dist. Churu
6. Shanker Lal S/o Banshidhar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Village Laachdser Tehsil Ratangarh Dist. Churu
----Petitioners
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:16:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/02/2026 at 09:42:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5933] (2 of 7) [CRLMA-14/2025]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Rewatram S/o Late Udaram, R/o Village Laachdser Tehsil
Ratangarh Dist. Churu
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Muktesh Maheswari
Mr. Pankaj Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
Mr. AR Godara
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
02/02/2026
1. The miscellaneous application moved on behalf of the
accused-applicants seeking recalling of the order dated
11.09.2024 passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in
Revision Petition No.886/2017 on the ground of not placing
proper vital facts before the court at the time of argument.
2. It is emanating from the record that the complainant,
Rewatram, lodged a police report alleging that the accused
persons, after committing the offence of house-breaking,
formed an unlawful assembly and assaulted him. Upon
completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet
against only seven persons out of the twelve named
accused. The complainant did not choose to avail the remedy
prescribed under law and applicable for a case instituted
upon a police report, instead, he moved a separate criminal
complaint seeking impleadment of six additional persons as
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:16:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5933] (3 of 7) [CRLMA-14/2025]
accused and prayed for taking cognizance and issuance of
process against them.
2.1 In a separate proceeding, the learned Magistrate, vide
order dated 24.04.2014, took cognizance upon the said
complaint and issued process against six persons who had
not been charge-sheeted by the police. It is noteworthy that
the matter instituted on police report for the same incident
was not considered or even taken together as per the
scheme of Cr.P.C. Though the procedure adopted by the
learned Magistrate appears seriously questionable, this Court
refrains from delving into that aspect in view of the
subsequent developments.
2.2 The order dated 24.04.2014 issuing process was
assailed by the accused persons by way of Criminal Revision
Petition No.7/2014 and vide order dated 04.04.2017 the
same came to be allowed by the learned Sessions Judge,
thereby setting aside the Magistrate's order. Aggrieved
thereof, the complainant preferred a Criminal Revision
Petition No.886/2017 before this Court, which was allowed
by a co-ordinate Bench on 11.09.2024 by setting aside the
revisional Court's order dated 04.04.2017.
3. The legal trajectory of the present matter is, indeed,
peculiar. In the interregnum, as there was no interim stay
operating, the learned Magistrate proceeded with the trial
against the seven charge-sheeted accused and recorded
evidence of certain prosecution witnesses. At that juncture,
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:16:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5933] (4 of 7) [CRLMA-14/2025]
the complainant moved an application under Section 319 of
the Cr.P.C. seeking arraignment of the same six left-out
accused persons for whom his prayer was declined by the
Session Judge in revisional jurisdiction. He might have
proeeded in doing so for the reason that the order of further
cognizance for these six persons had been reversed by the
learned Session Judge. The learned Magistrate dismissed the
said application vide order dated 01.06.2024. The
complainant challenged the said order by filing a revision
petition, which came to be allowed by the learned Sessions
Court on 20.08.2024. Thus, on one hand, proceedings under
Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. were set into motion by the order
of High Court, and on the other hand, an independent
exercise of power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. also came
into existence. It is trite that the stages contemplated under
Sections 190 and 319 of the Cr.P.C. are distinct, operating in
different fields, and the powers under these provisions are
exercisable at different stages of the proceedings. As a
consequence of the order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratangarh, six additional
accused were impleaded under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.,
and within a short span the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
passed the order dated 11.09.2024, regarding cognizance
under Section 190 Cr.P.C. This material development ought
to have been brought to the notice of the coordinate Court
by the learned counsel for the complainant. Simultaneously,
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:16:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5933] (5 of 7) [CRLMA-14/2025]
the accused persons were equally duty-bound to approach
the Court with clean hands and disclose the said fact while
filing Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.6267/2024 on
20.08.2024 challenging the order of learned Session Judge.
3.1 Be that as it may, these collateral controversies now
stand consigned to oblivion. As on date, the factual position
is that two separate orders, one under Section 190 of the
Cr.P.C. and another under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. exist in
relation to the same incident and the same set of accused
persons.
3.2. A serious anomalous situation has been created in this
matter by the parties by their behaviour which cosnequently
brought into effect two distinct judicial orders by different
courts. Whether the left out 6 persons should be taken as an
accused of the case right from the day when the matter was
brought before the magistrate on first occasion, before
proceeding to frame charges or commencement of trial or
whether they have been arraigned subsequently, as
additional accused during trial is a praplaxing situation. An
order in this regard is required to be passed just to end up
the controversy.
4. In this view of the matter and fact situation, the instant
petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-
a) The order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Criminal Revision Petition
No.886/2017 is recalled.
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:16:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5933] (6 of 7) [CRLMA-14/2025]
b) The parties shall not agitate the issue of arraignment of
additional accused under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C. Let this
issue be burried in light of the subsequent development.
c) Miscellaneous Petition No.6267/2024 is disposed of by
setting aside the order dated 20.08.2024 passed in Criminal
Revision No.08/2024, as the said order was passed without
affording an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused.
It is a settled principle that no judicial order in revisional
jurisdiction, adversely affecting a person can be passed
without granting him an opportunity of audience.
Accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall
restore the Criminal Revision Petition No.8/2024 to its
original number.
5. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the
accused persons, assures this Court that the purported 6
accused shall appear before the learned Court of Revision on
27.02.2026. Prior thereto, the complainant shall move an
appropriate application for their impleadment and learned
Session Judge shall allow the same. The amended cause title
shall be taken on record.
5.1 Whereafter, The learned Court of Revision shall hear
both the parties on the question of legality, correctness, and
propriety of the order dated 01.06.2024 passed by the
learned Trial Court in the application under Section 319 of
Cr.P.C. and shall decide the matter afresh, uninfluenced by
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:16:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5933] (7 of 7) [CRLMA-14/2025]
its earlier order or by any order passed by this Court either
in the present proceedings or in the earlier revision petition.
5.2 The learned Trial Court shall strictly adhere to the
parameters governing the exercise of power under Section
319 of the Cr.P.C. and shall be guided by the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh v. State
of Punjab reported in AIR 2014 SC 1400 and subsequently
in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab reported in
AIR 2023 SC 1. A fresh, reasoned, and speaking order shall
be passed. Considering that the incident pertains to the year
2008, the learned Court of Revision, after ensuring service
upon all parties, shall make sincere endeavours to decide the
matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of one
month post completion of service.
(FARJAND ALI),J
102-103.Samvedana/-
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 06:16:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
