[2025:RJ-JP:31016] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4204/2025 Mrs. Komal W/o Akash Sherasar, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of 88-B, Adarsh Naval Colony, Hasanpura A, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 11/08/2025 1. Petitioner-complainant, has invoked inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile 482 Cr.P.C.), to grant indulgence in the interlocutory order dated 09.06.2025, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Headquarter Sanganer, in criminal complaint No. 40/2025: Smt. Komal Vs. Kapil Dhariwal and Ors. whereby and whereunder the Judicial Magistrate has registered the complaint and asked the petitioner to produce evidence in order to decide the occurrence of cognizable offence. 2. Counsel for the petitioner admits that petitioner has not produced the evidence in furtherence to the order dated 09.06.2025, for the reason that bare perusal of the contents of complaint, occurrence of cognizable offence is prima facie established and no evidence in support thereof is required to be produced. [2025:RJ-JP:31016] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4204/2025] 3. This Court is of the considered opinion that the Judicial Magistrate has registered the criminal complaint and in order to record satisfaction about the occurrence of cognizable offence, has asked the petitioner to produce some evidence in support of the allegation levelled in the complaint. The Judicial Magistrate has the power and jurisdiction to ask and direct the petitioner/complainant to produce some evidence in support of criminal complaint and his such jurisdiction may not be interfered with by the High Court at this stage. 4. Merely on account of asking some evidence in support of averment made in the criminal complaint, it may not be assumed that the Judicial Magistrate has committed any illegality much less jurisdictional error or has exceeded its jurisdiction and the complaint shall not be sent for registering FIR. It is absolutely within jurisdiction of Magistrate at the later stage as well. 5. In that view of the matter, at this stage, there being no reason to grant indulgence in the impugned order, this Court finds that, the criminal misc. petition is wholly misconceived and same is hereby dismissed. 6. Let copy of this order be sent to the concerned Judicial Magistrate. (SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/30