[2025:RJ-JP:24499] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3201/2025 Mubarak Ali S/o Shri Manphool Shah, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Dudwa, P.s. Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Presently R/o New Indra Colony, Piprali Road, Sikar, P.s. Sadar, Sikar Presently Residing At Udhyog Nagar, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Balveer Singh S/o Shri Jhabarmal, R/o Fadanpura, P.s. Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Manohar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 03/07/2025 1. By filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1, Sikar (Raj.) while exercising revisional jurisdiction against the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the District Magistrate, Sikar whereby congnizance has been taken against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC. The revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that earlier pursuant to FIR lodged by the complainant against the petitioner, the Police Authorities conducted investigation and thereafter filed negative final report against the accused-petitioner, however, complainant thereafter filed protest petition and on his protest [2025:RJ-JP:24499] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-3201/2025] petition cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24.09.2024. Learned counsel further submits that since while taking cognizance, the relevant statements which were given in favour of petitioner have not been taken into consideration by the trial Court, feeling aggrieved by order of cognizance, he filed revision petition before the revisional Court, however in Revision Petition also perverse finding has been given and cognizance order has been confirmed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. It would come out from the record that the FIR has been filed in respect of cheques which was allegedly issued by the complainant and subsequently same has been narrated as misused and forged by the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that pursuant to same cheque, complaint under Section 138 of NI Act was filed by the petitioner against the complainant, however, in such proceedings, matter has been decided against the petitioner and the complainant has been acquitted. 6. Under this circumstances and after examining the findings given by learned revisional Court, I do not find any ground to interfere in the instant criminal misc. petition. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner has utterly failed to point out any miscarriage of justice with him and therefore, the instant criminal misc. petition is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /64