[2025:RJ-JP:42949] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1278/2025 1. Jagdish S/o Ramnath, R/o Raakhla Ki Dhani, Village Chhareda Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan Distt. Dausa (Raj) 2. Smt. Kalli Devi W/o Sh. Jagdish, R/o Raakhla Ki Dhani, Village Chhareda Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan Distt. Dausa (Raj) 3. Smt. Rajanti W/o (Late) Sh. Subhash, R/o Raakhla Ki Dhani, Village Chhareda Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan Distt. Dausa (Raj) 4. Smt. Priyanka @ Kavita D/o S Jagdish, R/o Raakhla Ki Dhani, Village Chhareda Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan Distt. Dausa (Raj) 5. Vishnu Kumar S/o Jagdish, R/o Raakhla Ki Dhani, Village Chhareda Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan Distt. Dausa (Raj) 6. Dinesh Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish, R/o Raakhla Ki Dhani, Vil- lage Chhareda Tehsil Nangal Rajawatan Distt. Dausa (Raj) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p 2. Ramjilal S/o Sh. Kanaram, R/o Raakhla Ki Dhani, Village Chhareda Tehsil Nangal Rajawtan Distt. Dausa (Raj) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anurag Sharma with Mr.Anoop Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, Addl.GA-cum-PP Mr.Mohar Pal Meena with Mr.Naresh Kumar Meena Mr.Sahil Kundara JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/10/2025 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.02.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dausa in Sessions Case No.101/2024, the instant [2025:RJ-JP:42949] (2 of 3) [CRLR-1278/2025] revision petition has been preferred by which charge has been framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 447, 148, 341, 323/149, 326/149 & 307/149 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order impugned has been passed in a cursory manner and no reasons have been specified that how prima facie case has been made out against the petitioners to proceed against them for the alleged offences/charges. Counsel submits that at the time of passing orders under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C., it is the duty of the Court concerned to pass a reasoned and speaking order, but in the instant case, this exercise has not been done by the Court below, hence, under these circumstances, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set- aside. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the prayer, but they are not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record as well as the order impugned which is under challenge before this Court. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 indicates that no reasons have been assigned by the Court below for passing the impugned order by which charges have been framed against the petitioner for the above stated offences. 6. It is the settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charge/discharge under Sections 227/228 Cr.P.C., the Court below is supposed to pass a reasoned and speaking order, [2025:RJ-JP:42949] (3 of 3) [CRLR-1278/2025] however, in the instant case, the order impugned has been passed in a cursory manner. On this count alone, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below for passing fresh reasoned and speaking order, after providing due opportunity of hearing to all the respective sides. 7. With the aforesaid observation, the instant criminal revision petition stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /28