[2025:RJ-JP:31269] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1520/2025 Hoshiyar Singh S/o Shri Sardar Singh, R/o Hamindpur, Tehsil Behror, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Raj Jain for Mr. Vikram Beniwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 12/08/2025 1. Petitioner-complainant has preferred instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 BNSS (erstwhile 482 CrPC), feeling aggrieved by dismissal of his applicatoin under Section 91 CrPC vide order dated 16.07.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Behror, District Alwar in Complaint No.22/13/2024, whereagainst criminal revision petition of petitioner has been dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2025 by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Behror, District Alwar. 2. It appears that petitioner has filed a criminal complaint under Section 190 CrPC against the Public Works Department and its employees for offences under Section 378/379, 403, 425/427 & 447 of IPC. In such criminal complaint, statements of petitioner- complainant and his witnesses have been recorded under Section 200/202 CrPC. At that stage, petitioner moved application under Section 91 CrPC, praying to appoint a Commissioner and call for [2025:RJ-JP:31269] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1520/2025] the inspection report of the construction at site. That applicatoin has been dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 16.07.2024 stating inter alia that the application does not fall within ambit and scope of Section 91 CrPC and through Court, petitioner may not be allowed to collect evidence. The revision petition filed thereagainst has been dismissed vide order dated 14.02.2025, assigning the reason that the order impugned is interlocutory in nature whereagainst revision is not maintainable. Hence, the instant petition. 3. Having heard counsel for petitioner and perusal of the impugned order and the other material available on record, this Court finds that the order passed by the trial Court does not suffer from any perversity, jurisdictional error and manifest illegality. Section 91 of CrPC does not permit the complainant, to make a prayer for appointment of Court Commissioner and to get the inspection report of site. The order impugned does not lead to any miscarriage of justice, warranting interference for ends of justice. 4. It is open for the petitioner-complainant to produce sufficient evidence on record, to the satisfaction of Magistrate, for taking cognizance of alleged offence against the accused persons. 5. As a result, the impugned order does not warrant any interference in exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS, hence, petition is hereby dismissed. 6. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/7