HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1254/2025 Ashok Kumar Jhajhariya S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Jhajhariya, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Ranasar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Tonk, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Dausa District Dausa (Raj.) 4. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Circle Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh Saharan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/11/2025 1. The instant criminal writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner to the extent of ex parte remarks passed against the petitioner in Para 104 of the judgment dated 17.06.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa by which a direction has been issued to the Director General of Police and Principal Secretary, Department of Home for conducting departmental enquiry against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the second Investigating Officer of FIR No.152/2019 registered with Police Station Nangal Rajawatan, District Dausa for the offences under Sections 376, 360, 384, 504 & 506 IPC and finally (2 of 3) [CRLW-1254/2025] the charge-sheet was submitted under Section 306 IPC against the accused-Shiv Lal, who faced trial before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa. Learned counsel submits that, at the time of trial, benefit of doubt was extended to petitioner and he was acquitted from the above stated charges. Learned counsel submits that while passing the judgment dated 17.06.2025, adverse remarks have been passed against the petitioner and a direction has been issued to the Director General of Police and Principal Secretary, Department of Home to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid direction has been issued without issuing any notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing, and the same has been issued in utter violation of principles of natural justice, hence, the direction issued in Para 104 of the judgment dated 17.06.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 3. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur:- (1) Bhanwar Lal Devasi Vs. State of Rajasthan while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3880/2017 on 18.01.2018; and (2) Amarjeet Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan through PP while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3846/2021 on 08.01.2025. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but he is not in a (3 of 3) [CRLW-1254/2025] position to controvert the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that while passing the judgment dated 17.06.2025, learned trial judge has extended the benefit of doubt to the accused for the offences under Section 306 IPC, but before parting with the aforesaid judgment, certain adverse remarks have been passed against the petitioner in Para 104 of the judgment dated 17.06.2025. A direction has also been issued to the Director General of Police and Principal Secretary, Department of Home for conducting departmental enquiry against the petitioner. 7. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment clearly indicates that the aforesaid direction has been issued without issuing any notice or without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which has resulted in the violation of principles of natural justice as captured in the latin maxim audi alteram partem. 8. On this count alone, the direction issued in Para 104 of the judgment dated 17.06.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set-aside, and is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted to the trial court for passing appropriate orders after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/4