[2025:RJ-JP:1713] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6742/2019 Sompal S/o Shri Nandaram Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Talwad Tehsil Bheroad, District Alwar, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Manish K Sharma Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr.Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been made to the impugned order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar in Criminal Complaint No.8/2016 by which the charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 4B/ 6 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 1992 (for short, "the Act of 1992"). 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a revision petition before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, however, the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 26.09.2019. 3. Feeling aggrieved by both the orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing of this petition. [2025:RJ-JP:1713] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6742/2019] 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no iota of evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offences. Counsel submits that after thorough investigation in the matter, final report negative was proposed as the involvement of the petitioner was not found but soon 5 days thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted without any basis. Counsel submits that prima facie, no evidence is available on the record to connect the petitioner with the allegations of use of unfair means, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that allegations are there against the petitioner that by using his cell-phone bearing No.9928470541, the petitioner provided answers in code words to five students, that is why, charge-sheet has been submitted against him and accordingly, charges have been framed. Counsel submits that at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case is required to be seen and prima facie case is made out against the petitioner, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. As per the arguments put forward by the learned Public Prosecutor and looking to the fact that as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner has used his cell-phone for the purpose of providing answers in code words to five students, this Court does not deem it just and proper to appreciate the evidence available on the record in the meticulous manner as it is settled [2025:RJ-JP:1713] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6742/2019] proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case is required to be seen. In the present case, after finding prima facie case against the petitioner, charges have been framed by the Court below which require no interference of this Court. 8. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands rejected. Stay application and all other application(s), pending if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/61