[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Surendra Pal Beniwal vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:11940]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 62/2026
Surendra Pal Beniwal S/o Shri Lal Chand, Aged About 51 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 27, Bhabhuta Sidh Colony, Hanumangarh
Town Tehsil District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Virendra Kumar S/o Subhash, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 22, Hanumangarh Town Tehsil
District Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dixit Panwar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 12/02/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 12/02/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16/03/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed
under Section 528 B.N.S.S. by the petitioner, challenging the order
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1,
Hanumangarh, on 20.12.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 97/2025.
This order dismissed the petitioner's revision, which was filed
against the order passed on 09.12.2025 by the learned Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh, in Criminal Case No.
01/2025, wherein it was directed to hand over possession of the
disputed property to respondent No.2.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:26:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11940] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-62/2026]
2. The facts giving rise to the instant Misc. Petition are that on
15.12.2024, the Station House Officer of Hanumangarh Town
Police Station submitted a complaint before the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Hanumangarh, under Section 164 B.N.S.S., citing a
dispute between the executive committee of Arya Samaj
Hanumangarh Town and the newly formed executive committee of
Arya Samaj Pratinidhi Sabha, Jaipur. The dispute pertained to the
possession and ownership of the Arya Samaj Mandir premises. The
officer expressed concerns that both parties, intent on asserting
their claims, might engage in acts of violence, thus disturbing
public peace. Given the history of conflicting orders and the
imminent threat of law and order disruptions, the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate directed immediate action under the BNSS provisions,
ensuring stringent surveillance and investigation. The task was
entrusted to Sub-Inspector Shambhudayal.
2.1. Upon investigation, the Sub-Inspector reported that the
competing parties, both asserting their right to the disputed
property, were likely to provoke altercations. With the urgency of
the situation, the officer recommended a unilateral decision,
suggesting the appointment of a receiver to manage the premises.
Consequently, on 21.01.2025, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
without granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard,
ordered the Station House Officer to assume receivership of the
premises, under Sections 164 and 165 B.N.S.S.
2.2. On 06.12.2025, the respondent filed a revision petition
before the Additional Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh, challenging
the order of 21.01.2025. The Additional Sessions Judge, vide
order dated 06.12.2025, annulled the earlier order and remanded
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:26:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11940] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-62/2026]
the case back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate for fresh
consideration after providing both parties an opportunity to be
heard.
2.3. Subsequently, on 08.12.2025, the respondent filed an
application before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate seeking
possession of the disputed property. On 09.12.2025, the
Magistrate ruled in favor of the respondent and directed the
transfer of possession. The petitioner, dissatisfied with this order,
filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge,
Hanumangarh. However, on 20.12.2025, the Additional Sessions
Judge dismissed the petition, upholding the Magistrate's decision.
Hence, the instant Criminal Misc. Petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully
reviewed the impugned orders. After due consideration of the rival
submissions and a thorough examination of the facts and orders
passed by the courts below, this Court proceeds to record its
findings and conclusions which are as under:-
(a) A critical examination reveals that the SDM, Hanumangarh
did not comply with the mandatory requirements prescribed under
Sections 145 & 146 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.),
which necessitates the Magistrate's satisfaction that a genuine
dispute exists over possession and that a breach of the peace is
imminent. The SDM's order failed to record this essential
satisfaction and did not provide a cogent explanation for the
appointment of a receiver under Sections 164 and 165 B.N.S.S.
This omission is not a mere formal lapse but a substantial flaw
that renders the SDM's order legally untenable.
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:26:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11940] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-62/2026]
(b) The learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, in
exercising its revisional jurisdiction, astutely identified this glaring
procedural error. In its wisdom, the Sessions Judge annulled the
SDM's order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration,
ensuring that both parties are given an opportunity to be heard
and that the proper legal procedures are followed. The learned
Addl. Sessions Judge relied on the established precedents, notably
Rajnikant Agarwal vs. Gopali Devi Meena & Ors., 2010 (1)
RLW 75 (Raj.) and Ashoknath Chela Keval Nath vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr., 2023 (2) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 636, which
underscore the imperative to adhere strictly to procedural
safeguards, especially in cases that may result in public disorder.
(c) The learned revisional court, thus acted with due judicial
acumen in remanding the matter, recognizing the flaws in the
SDM's order and ensuring that the case was adjudicated in
accordance with the law. The citation of case laws in the appellate
court's order reflects the proper application of legal principles,
reaffirming the correctness of its adjudication. The reliance on
these precedents demonstrates the learned Judge's commitment
to ensuring that justice is not only done but is seen to be done
with full respect to the law.
4. In light of these considerations, this Court is of the firm
opinion that the order passed by the SDM, Hanumangarh is not in
accordance with the law and is therefore liable to be quashed. On
the other hand, the order dated 20.12.2025 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, is sound
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:26:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:11940] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-62/2026]
and well-founded in law. The remand order issued by the appellate
court was entirely appropriate, and this Court sees no reason to
interfere with the same.
5. For the reasons outlined above, this Court finds that the
impugned order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Hanumangarh
dated 09.12.2025 was not passed in accordance with law. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Hanumangarh, has rightly
adjudicated the matter, ensuring that justice is meted out in
accordance with the procedural safeguards of the law. The order
of remand, which has been correctly based on the principles
enunciated in the cited case laws, does not warrant any
interference from this Court.
6. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Misc. Petition is hereby
dismissed. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
25-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 18/03/2026 at 02:26:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
