HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4051/2025 Rajkumar S/o Late Shri Kesariya, R/o Kediyan Mohalla, Bharatpur, P.s. Kotawali, Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Shubham Goyal S/o Shri Subhash Chandra Goyal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Kamla Road, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.) 3. Puran S/o Shri Madanlal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Bada Mohalla, Kamla Road, Bharatpur, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.) 4. Mahendra Kumar @ Bablu S/o Shri Bhopal Sing, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Kotwali Ke Piche, Kondiyan Mohalla, Bharatpur, P.s. Kotawali, Bharatpur (Raj.) 5. Vikram Singh S/o Shri Tulsi Ram, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Bhagwan Takees Ke Samne, Ramnagar, Bharatpur (Raj.) 6. Bhupal Singh S/o Shri Harbaksh, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Kotwali Ke Piche, Kondiyan Mohalla, Bharatpur, P.s. Kotawali, Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 11/07/2025 1. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 528 of BNSS to quash and set aside the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur(Raj.) whereby Learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur(Raj.) remanded the matter observing that the learned Trial Court has not given the specific finding regarding commission of offence by the respondent Nos.4 to 6. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order passed by the Revisional Court is illegal. The learned (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4051/2025] Trial Court vide order dated 16.08.2024, took cognizance against all the respondents for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC and there was enough material available on record against the respondent Nos.2 to 6 regarding commission of offence, therefore, the observation of the Revisional Court that the Trial Court did not assign reasons regarding their criminal Act is not correct and may be set aside. 3. Heard and perused the impugned order and material available on record. 4. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 16.08.2024, took cognizance under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC against respondent Nos.2 to 6. The said cognizance order was challenged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur(Raj.) and vide order dated 14.05.2025, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Bharatpur(Raj.) observed that the learned Trial Court did not consider the role of the respondent Nos.4 to 6 regarding their involvement in the present case. 5. The above observations of the learned Revisional Court does not seem to be wrong or against the settled principle of law. It is the duty of the concerned Magistrate to assign the cogent reasons regarding commission of any offence by the offenders, at the time of passing the cognizance order. Therefore, this Court do not find any perversity or illegality in the order passed by the Revisional Court. 6. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J HEENA/27