[2025:RJ-JP:33806] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2085/2025 Bharat Badsiwal S/o Shri Sampat Ram Badsiwal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Daulatpura Kotda, Tehsil Amer ,district Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Shri Sampat Ram Badsiwal, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Village Daulatpura Kotda, Tehsil Amer District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 26/08/2025 1. Petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 528 BNSS, 2023, in order to assail the order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, whereby and whereunder charges for offences under Sections 423, 406, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC have been framed against the petitioner. 2. The contention of counsel for petitioner is that charges against the petitioner have been framed in connection with FIR No.256/2021 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur City (East), District Jaipur, whereas for the same set of facts, previous FIR No.587/2020 at Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur (West), was lodged by the complainant. In the previous FIR, after thorough investigation, police submitted final negative report with finding that the dispute is of civil nature, however, in the second [2025:RJ-JP:33806] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2085/2025] FIR, after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the charges impugned have been framed against the petitioner which are ex-facie illegal and contrary to law. 3. Be that as it may, counsel for petitioner admits that a statutory remedy of filing criminal revision petition against the order of framing charges by the Judicial Magistrate, was available to the petitioner before the Court of Sessions, but he could not avail that remedy within the statutory period of limitation, hence, the instant petition has been filed. 4. During course of arguments, counsel for petitioner prays for withdrawal of this petition with liberty to assail the impugned order of farming charges dated 13.11.2024, before the Court of Sessions with an application for assigning the reason of delay and for seeking condonation of delay. 5. In view of above, this Court without expressing opinion on merits/demerits of the order of charge and leaving the arguments, put forth by the counsel for petitioner, open to be raised before the Revisional Court, dispose of the instant petition with liberty to file a criminal revision petition against the impugned order of framing charges before the Court of Sessions. 6. It is made clear that, in case, any revision petition filed by petitioner against the impugned order of framing charges along with application for condonation of delay within a period of 30 days, the Sessions Court shall consider the application for condonation of delay, appreciating the reasons assigned therein in accordance with law and primarily shall make an endeavor to decide the revision petition on merits. [2025:RJ-JP:33806] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2085/2025] 7. Accordingly, the petition stand disposed of with the liberty as prayed for. 8. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/8