[2025:RJ-JP:35195] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 383/2016 Shree Nidan Hospital And Home Fertility Center, 27, Vidhyut Nagar-A, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Though Dr. Ritu Chouhan Proprietor Nidan Hospital And Home Fertility Center ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Surana, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Umang Jain, Adv. Mr. Anuj Rohila, Adv. & Mr. Siddharth Sogani, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl.G.A. with Mr. Devi Singh, Dy.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 03/09/2025 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for compliance of the order dated 13.01.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') whereby an application was filed under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. bearing No.44/2011 (State Vs. Shree Nidan Hospital) with a prayer for releasing one ultrasound machine of the petitioner in his favour and the said application was allowed by learned trial Court. 2. Against the impugned order dated 13.01.2012, State preferred a revision petition No.108/2012 before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, [2025:RJ-JP:35195] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-383/2016] Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revisional Court') and the said revision petition was dismissed vide order dated 19.06.2014. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the orders dated 19.06.2014 and 13.01.2012 passed by learned Courts below, the said ultrasound machine has not been released in favour of the petitioner, therefore, he prays that the present petition be allowed and in compliance of the impugned order dated 13.01.2012 passed by learned trial Court, the said ultrasound machine be released in favour of the petitioner. 4. Vide order dated 22.09.2016, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed learned counsel for the respondent-State to inform the Court whether the State Government has challenged the order dated 19.06.2014 passed by learned Revisional Court or not and also why compliance of the impugned order passed by learned Court below has not been made yet. 5. After lapse of almost 9 years, learned counsel for the respondent-State is not in a position to apprise this Court regarding both the aforesaid queries. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present petition is allowed with the direction that in compliance of the impugned order dated 13.01.2012 passed by learned trial Court, the ultrasound machine of the petitioner seized in this case, shall be released in his favour within a period of two months from passing of this order. 7. Stay application and all other pending applications also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J AARZOO ARORA /28