HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1289/2016 1- cqf)izdk”k iq= ckykjke mez 21 o’kZ fuoklh ckalM+k cusflag] Fkkuk ckSayh ftyk lokbZek/kksiqjA 2- cUusflag] fi- jkejru fu- cgknqjiqjk gky fu0 fuokbZ 3- guqeku fi- jkejru fu- cgknqjiqjk gky fu0 fuokbZ 4-+ NksVk fi- dSyk”k fu- dkyk eky dh >kSifM+;k rg- ckSyh ----Petitioners Versus 1- jktLFkku ljdkj tfj;s yksd vfHk;kstdA 2- fxjkZt iq= Jh jkexksiky fuoklh xzke j?kqoaVh rglhy ckSyh ftyk lokbZek/kksiqjA ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Saurabh Khandppa with Mr.Piyush Balot & Mr.Deepesh Sharma for Mr.Pradeep Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr.Bhadar Singh & Mr.Avinash Dhanju Mr.N.S. Dhakar, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned F.I.R. No.365/2015 registered at Police Station Bowli, District Sawai Madhopur for the offence registered under Sections 363 & 366 IPC. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners pleads no instructions. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the basis of the factual report received from S.H.O. Police Station Bowli, District Sawai Madhopur apprised this Court that after thorough investigation, involvement of only accused Bhuddi Prakash @ Budhram S/o Balram Gurjar has been found to be prima facie proved for the offence under (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1289/2016] Sections 363, 366 & 376 IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act. Counsel submits that since the petitioner-Budhiprakash @ Budhram is absconding and he is not traceable in spite of several efforts made by the Investigating Agency, hence, under these circumstances, charge-sheet was submitted against him under Section 299 Cr.P.C. in his absence. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the instant petition has become infructuous. 4. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and the material available on the record and after perusal of the F.I.R., it appears that commission of cognizable offence is made out in the instant matter. The correctness of such allegations levelled in the F.I.R. cannot be examined and adjudicated by this Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Agency, who has already found prima facie involvement of the accused Budhiprakash @ Budhram for the above stated offence and looking to the fact that he is absconding, hence, charge-sheet has been submitted against him under Section 299 Cr.P.C. This Court finds no valid reason to entertain the instant petition qua the petitioner No.1, hence, the same stands rejected. 5. So far as the instant petition pertaining to the other co- accused persons is concerned, the same has become infructuous as their role has not been found to be proved in the instant matter. 6. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands rejected. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /26