[2025:RJ-JP:25479] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3713/2025 Ahsan Ulla @ Mohammad Munavvar S/o Mohammad Rahmatullah, Aged About 44 Years, House No. 5-3-464, Near Topkhana Masjid, Ghosa Mahal, Naampali, Hayderabad. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through the PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Fahad Hasan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 10/07/2025 1. The present petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for quashing the proceedings in Session Case No.249/202 (CIS No.3249/2022) pending in the Court of Additional District & Session Judge No.4, Ajmer for the offence under Sections 143, 506, 504, 188, 117, 302/115 read with Section 149 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on account of certain bona fide reasons the petitioner was not able to mark personal presence in the concerned Court on various occasions, resultant to which non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner. It is further submitted that during the said tenure, qua the main accused and the co-accused, proceedings were initiated, wherein they were exonerated, however, the petitioner was not exonerated due to non-participation. In this [2025:RJ-JP:25479] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-3713/2025] regard, learned counsel has submitted that on account of said fact entire proceedings ought to be quashed. 3. Upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the present petition for the reason that impugned order rejecting the application filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., is justified on account of non appearance of the petitioner; that order dated 16.07.2024 (Annexure-4) is justified and well-speaking order, whereby co-accused and main accused were exonerated, howsoever, no order was passed qua petitioner on account of non-participation; that the petitioner has approached this Court without availing alternative remedy. It is settled position of law that a writ petition should not be entertained when an effective alternate remedy is provided by law. 4. Taking note of the aforementioned, this Court deems it apposite to dismiss the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail alternate and efficacious remedy available, in accordance with the law. 5. In view of the above, present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/85