[2025:RJ-JP:42740] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5441/2022 1. Pushpa Sharma @ Sunita Sharma Wife Of Subhash Sharma, Proprietor, M/s Vinayak Complex, Station Road, Jaipur, Resident Of P/o 547, Sector Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. 2. Subhash Sharma Son Of Durga Dutt Sharma, Resident Of P/o 547, Sector Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Accused/Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 17/10/2025 This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 07.05.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-II (for brevity “the learned Revisional Court”) whereby, while dismissing the Revision Petition No.10/2022, CIS No.40/2022, the order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan- II (for short “the learned trial Court”) dismissing the application filed by the accused-petitioners (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners”) under Section 70(2) of CrPC, has been affirmed. The relevant facts in brief are that a complaint was filed against the petitioners under Sections 418, 420, 406 and 120-B [2025:RJ-JP:42740] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5441/2022] IPC which was sent to the police for investigation. After investigation, the investigating agency submitted the negative final report finding the allegations to be of civil nature. However, the learned trial Court, vide its order dated 31.10.2015, after taking cognizance against the petitioners and co-accused persons under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC, summoned the petitioners but, despite service, they did not appear. Thereafter, vide order dated 04.11.2016, they were summoned through bailable warrants but, they did not appear despite execution of the bailable warrants whereafter, they were summoned through non- bailable warrants. An application filed by them under Section 70(2) of CrPC seeking conversion of non-bailable warrants to bailable warrants was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 12.01.2022 which was unsuccessfully challenged by them by way of a revision petition which came to be dismissed by the learned revisional Court vide order dated 07.05.2022. Assailing the order impugned, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since, they are ready to face the trial, non-bailable warrants be converted into the bailable warrants. He, therefore, prays that this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed, the order dated 07.05.2022 be quashed and set aside and the non-bailable warrants issued may be converted to bailable warrants. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered. A perusal of the order impugned reveals that despite service of summons, the petitioners did not appear compelling the learned trial Court to issue bailable warrants to secure their presence. [2025:RJ-JP:42740] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5441/2022] However, despite execution of bailable warrants, still, the petitioners did not choose to appear before the learned trial Court to face the trial constraining to issue non-bailable warrants to secure their presence. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court did not err in issuing the non- bailable warrants to secure presence of the petitioners and the learned revisional Court also committed no such illegality in dismissing their revision petition so as to warrant interference by this Court under its extraordinary jurisdictional under Section 482 CrPC. Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/1