[2025:RJ-JP:34194] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1825/2025 Ram Kunwar S/o Shrid Bhudev, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Pakhar Chaudaki, Tehsil And Police Station Mandawar, District Dausa (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Jagmal S/o Bhudev, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of Pakhar- T, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa. 3. Ramkishan S/o Bhudev, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of Pakhar-T, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa. 4. Ramdayal S/o Bhudev, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Pakhar-T, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa. 5. Gopal S/o Bhabhal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Pakhar- T, Tehsil Mandawar, District Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 27/08/2025 1. By means of filing instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, petitioner has impugned the interim stay order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahwa, District Dausa, in Criminal Revision Petition No.10/2025, staying the order of appointment of receiver during course of hearing of the revision petition. It is noteworthy that the criminal revision petition has been filed by respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 against the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mandawar, Dausa, appointing a receiver in the proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC. 2. In present criminal misc. petition, vide interim order dated 24.04.2025, operation of impugned order dated 10.03.2025 was [2025:RJ-JP:34194] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1825/2025] stayed and it has been informed that in pursuance thereof, possession of lands in question from respondent Nos. 2 to 4, has been taken by the receiver and presently same is with the receiver i.e. Tehsildar of Tehsil- Mandawar. 3. When the matter came up on board yesterday i.e. on 26.08.2025, following order was passed:- “Due to objection by the counsel for private respondent and the fact that interim stay is operating in favour of petitioner, the prayer for adjournment made on behalf of petitioner is declined. Arguments of counsel for respondent have been heard. It appears that petitioner obtained interim stay order dated 24.04.2025, by distorting the correct facts as in the application for temporary injunction, vide order dated 10.12.2024, injunction order was granted in favour of petitioner and on the same date, in the main revenue suit, application of defendant to appoint Court Commissioner for inspection of site, was dismissed. It appears that an impression was given to the Bench that on 10.12.2024, no injunction order has been passed and in that view, the Court passed interim stay order dated 24.04.2025. In the interest of justice, list the matter tomorrow, i.e., on 27.08.2025.” 4. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the record. 5. Counsel for petitioner, in view of the fact that the order impugned dated 10.03.2025 is only interlocutory in nature, passed during course of criminal revision petition and the criminal revision petition is yet to be heard and decided on merits, does not press the present misc. petition and seeks permission to withdraw the same, to take his all grounds before the revisional Court on merits. 6. Counsel, appearing for respondents No.2 to 4, states that respondents No.2 to 4 were in possession over their portion of [2025:RJ-JP:34194] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1825/2025] agricultural lands, but possession has been taken by the receiver from respondents No.2 to 4, in the light of interim order dated 24.04.2025, hence, in view of dismissal of this petition, the possession of the lands in question may be directed to be restored to respondents No.2 to 4 and the revision petition may be ordered to be decided, expeditiously. 7. In view of the above contentions made by respective counsel for both parties, instant criminal misc. petition is hereby dismissed. Consequent upon dismissal of main petition, interim order dated 24.04.2025 stands vacated and the interim stay order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the revisional Court, becomes revived. 8. It is hereby observed that the order of appointment of receiver dated 11.02.2025 was stayed by the revisional Court, vide order dated 10.03.2025, and at that point of time, respondents No.2, 3 & 4 were in actual and physical possession over the portion of land, which has been received by the receiver in the light of interim order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. Now since the interim order dated 24.04.2025 comes to an end, therefore, it is hereby directed that the possession of the lands in question shall be restored forthwith by the receiver to respondents No.2 to 4. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not opined any opinion on merits of the order dated 11.02.2025, appointing a receiver and the revisional Court shall consider and decide the revision petition on its own merits and shall make an endeavour to decide [2025:RJ-JP:34194] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1825/2025] the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today. 10. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/114-S