[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gangabishan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:13565) on 23 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13565]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8938/2025
Gangabishan Singh S/o Sh Laxmi Narayan, Aged About 76 Years,
Behind Nagar Nigam, Rawato Ka Mohalla, Ps Sadar, District
Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Madan Singh S/o Laxmi Narayan, Behind Nagar Nigam
Rawato Ka Mohalla Ps Sadar Bikaner
3. Sharda Kanwar W/o Madan Singh, Behind Nagar Nigam
Rawato Ka Mohalla Ps Sadar Bikaner
4. Ram Singh Asi Investigation Officer, Ps Sadar Bikaner
Through Superintendent Of Police Bikaner
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Kumar Sharma
Ms. Ayushi Parihar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
23/03/2026
The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner in FIR No. 492/2016,
whereby the negative final report submitted by the Investigating
Agency was accepted. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the
order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge No. 5, Bikaner in Criminal Revision Petition No. 55/2023,
whereby the revision petition preferred against the aforesaid order
was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Investigating Agency, despite filing a negative final report, has
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 07:50:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13565] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-8938/2025]
clearly indicated that offences against the accused-respondent
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B IPC were made
out.
It is submitted that upon perusal of the negative final report,
a protest petition was filed and the matter was argued at length.
It is further submitted that the material available on record clearly
discloses the commission of offences; however, the learned
Magistrate, by the impugned order, illegally accepted the negative
final report. Learned counsel further submits that the revisional
Court also failed to properly consider the facts of the case and the
sufficient material available on record to take cognizance, and
wrongly dismissed the revision petition.
He, therefore, prays that the impugned orders be set aside
and cognizance be directed to be taken against the respondent.
Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
This Court has considered the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner and has gone through the
impugned orders dated 07.09.2021 and 04.02.2025.
Upon filing of the negative final report, the learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the protest petition filed by the
petitioner and examined the matter in detail. Upon consideration
of the material on record, the learned Magistrate found that no
prima facie offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B
IPC was made out. Consequently, the protest petition was
dismissed and the negative final report was accepted.
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 07:50:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13565] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-8938/2025]
The learned revisional Court also considered all the
averments raised by the petitioner in detail and, based on the
material available on record, found that no case for taking
cognizance of the alleged offences was made out. There are
concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The
material on record has been properly appreciated by the learned
Magistrate as well as the revisional Court, and it has been rightly
concluded that no case for taking cognizance is made out. The
order of the learned Trial Court as well as the order of the
Revisional Court discloses reasons and analysis of the relevant
considerations and reflects conscious application of mind.
Further, Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
enacts a clear prohibition against entertaining a second revision at
the behest of the same party. This restriction is intended to ensure
finality in decisions, maintain procedural discipline, and avoid
multiple proceedings that may delay the administration of criminal
justice.
The inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS can be
invoked only to rectify patent illegality, jurisdictional
transgression, or manifest miscarriage of justice. In the present
case, no such exceptional or extraordinary circumstance has been
demonstrated. The petitioner has not been able to point out any
perversity, arbitrariness, material irregularity, or jurisdictional
infirmity in the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below. All
the averments raised have already been duly considered and
addressed by both the Courts.
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 07:50:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13565] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-8938/2025]
Hence, in view of the specific bar against a second revision,
coupled with the absence of any manifest illegality or miscarriage
of justice, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the
impugned orders dated 07.09.2021 and 04.02.2025.
Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition stands
dismissed.
All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
27-deep/-
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 07:50:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
