HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3019/2015 Ajay Krishna Tengor Son Of Maharaj Krishan, R/o 98/27, Josganj, Ramganj, Ajmer. ----Petitioner-Complainant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.P. ----Respondent 2. Nahar Singh Son Of Late Shri Hajari Singh, R/o Through Moolchand Shekhawat, Braj Bihari Colony, Gulabbari, Naya Ghar, Ajmer. ----Accused-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Poonam Shekhawat for Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitnedra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/03/2026 1. Perusal of the impugned order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer indicates that the complaint submitted by the complainant-petitioner was rejected for want of his appearance and the accused-respondent was acquitted from the charge under Section 323 IPC vide order dated 17.06.2014. 2. The complainant-petitioner submitted an application for restoration of the aforesaid complaint, however, the said application was also rejected vide the impugned order dated 07.07.2014. 3. In the considered opinion of this Court, in the instant matter, the order of acquittal has already been passed in favour of the accused-respondent in the criminal complaint submitted by the (2 of 2) [CRLMP-3019/2015] complainant-petitioner on account of want of his appearance, hence, a criminal leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. would be maintainable against the order impugned passed by the Court below. 4. On this count alone, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of, granting liberty to the complainant-petitioner to file a criminal leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. 5. In case, an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act is submitted, the same would be dealt by the Appellate Court in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 7. Office is directed to return the certified copies of the impugned orders along with ‘vakalatnama’ to counsel for the petitioner, after retaining photocopies of the same on the record. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/24