[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Crlmp / 6145U / 2026Pawan Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20825) on 1 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:20825]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3431/2026
Pawan Kumar S/o Bal Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Ward No.-
04, Mandi Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Nirmlesh W/o Bal Ram, R/o Ward No.-04, Mandi Pilibanga,
District Hanumangarh.raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Gharsana.
Mr. I.S. Rathore.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP
Mr. Trilok Joshi - R/2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
01/05/2026
1. The petitioner has preferred the present criminal misc.
petition with the prayer that an independent Medical Board be
constituted to re-examine the injuries sustained by injured
Balram.
2. Facts as narrated in the instant petition are that on
21.02.2026, the complainant Smt. Nirmalesh, lodged FIR No.
97/2026 for offences under Sections 333, 74, 115(2), 126(2), and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 stating that while she
and her husband Balram were at their house in Genius School
premises, the petitioner Pawan, along with Aamir Khan (his
bouncer) and a mason, arrived to construct a wall in the park
area. When Balram objected, citing a pending civil dispute, the
accused allegedly abused him, slapped and pushed him to the
ground, and caused injuries to his legs with a stick and an iron
(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 11:56:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20825] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3431/2026]
rod. On intervening, the complainant was allegedly pushed to the
ground and threatened. Balram was taken to Government
Hospital, Pilibanga, and later referred to a higher center in
Hanumangarh.
2.1. The petitioner subsequently filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No. 1852/2026 before this Court, seeking quashing of the FIR on
the ground that it was based on false, fabricated, and malicious
allegations arising from a family dispute. Thereafter, the Court
procured the case diary and after perusal of the same, the
petitioner came to know about the medical report of the injured
Balram.
2.2. Subsequently, on 06.04.2026, the petitioner filed an
application before the learned trial court seeking constitution of a
Medical Board for re-examination of the injuries allegedly
sustained by Balram, alleging collusion between the complainant,
the injured, and the government doctor in procuring false medical
reports. However, the learned trial court dismissed the said
application vide order dated 16.04.2026.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
application was filed for seeking the constitution of a Medical
Board to re-examine injured Balram, however, the same was
rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 16.04.2026 on
the ground that the petitioner was unable to establish the relation
of the complainant with the doctor who had earlier submitted his
report of the injured Balram. He further submits that while
rejecting the application, the learned trial court has given
contradictory observations. While referring to the impugned order
dated 16.04.2026, it is contended that on the one hand, the
(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 11:56:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20825] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3431/2026]
learned trial court observed that the petitioner is always at liberty
to submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police and the
Deputy Inspector General of Police for the constitution of an
independent Medical Board and at the same time, learned trial
court also observed that considering the facts and circumstances
of the case, the request for constitution of a Medical Board is not
justified. He also submits that the learned trial court has
committed serious error in rejecting the application as the
re-examination of injured by the Medical Board would rather assist
the prosecution so also the complainant in establishing the
allegations as alleged in the FIR.
3.1 In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner relies on judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in the case of Ajeet Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Ors. : S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1673/2026, decided on
18.03.2026 and states that the case in hand is based on almost
identical facts and therefore, the present petition may also be
allowed.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
4.1. Further, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 -
complainant submits that the incident occurred in February, 2026
and therefore, no purpose would be served in constituting a
Medical Board at this stage. He further submits that the petitioner
should have made the request in time, if at all it was deemed
necessary.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 11:56:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20825] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3431/2026]
6. It is noted that the alleged incident occurred on 21.02.2026
and request for constituting the Medical Board was submitted on
25.03.2026 to the District Collector, Hanumangarh;
Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh and CMHO,
Hanumangarh. When the request was not considered, the
application was submitted before the trial court, however, the
same came to be rejected vide the impugned order dated
16.04.2026.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the trial court
committed error while rejecting the application seeking
constitution of a Medical Board for re-examination of the injured.
The constitution of a Medical Board to re-examine the injured
would in no manner prejudice the case of the prosecution and
would have rather proved to be helpful in arriving at a conclusion
as to whether offence as alleged in the FIR is made out or not.
8. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case so also the judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court, the present petition is allowed. The CMHO, Hanumangarh is
directed to constitute a Medical Board and examine the injured
within a period of one week. The investigating agency shall
consider the report and conclude the investigation in accordance
with law.
9. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
208-Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 02/05/2026 at 11:56:53 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
