[2025:RJ-JP:44738] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4092/2017 Avtar Singh S/o Late Shri Richpal Singh, R/o Village Gunathu, Distt. Sikar Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor, District Sikar 2. Mool Singh S/o Shri Bhagirath Singh, R/o Gunathu, Police Station Losal, Distt. Sikar 3. Man Kanwar W/o Bhagirath Singh, R/o Gunathu, Police Station Losal, Distt. Sikar 4. Suman Kanwar W/o Rajendra Singh, R/o Gunathu, Police Station Losal, Distt. Sikar ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Sumer Singh for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 07/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against order of discharge of accused dated 13.02.2015 was dismissed on account of being withdrawn by his counsel, who appeared before the revisional Court. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the revisional Court had no instructions from the petitioner to withdraw the petitioner, however, without his instructions, the petition was [2025:RJ-JP:44738] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4092/2017] withdrawn which has caused serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Devarajan Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2014) 15 SCC 684 where a request to restore the revision petition was made with direction to the revisional Court to decide the same on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor opposed the petition and submitted that once the revision petition was withdrawn, there is no provision for restoration of revision petition in criminal jurisdiction. 5. Heard and considered. 6. It is a specific case of the petitioner that at no point of time, he instructed his counsel to withdraw the revision petition, however, without there being any instructions from the complainant and without consulting the petitioner, counsel at his own instance had withdrawn the revision petition. 7. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Devarajan (supra) has observed as under:- "2. The learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 29-1-2004 had dismissed the application filed by the appellant for discharge of the offence under Section 366-A of the Penal Code, 1860. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant had approached the High Court by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.2602 of 2004. 3. The High Court, by the impugned judgment and order dated 12-10-2009 had permitted the learned counsel for the appellant to withdraw the criminal revision petition. However, in the appeal filed by the appellant, the appellant has stated on oath that he had not authorised any learned counsel to withdraw the revision petition filed by him before the High Court. Therefore, it is stated [2025:RJ-JP:44738] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4092/2017] that the High Court ought not to have entertained the application made by the learned counsel for withdrawal of the criminal revision petition. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, we are of opinion that the learned counsel, who had withdrawn the criminal revision petition before the High Court, was not authorised by the appellant to withdraw the same. Therefore, while accepting the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and remand the matter back to the High Court with a request to decide the criminal revision petition on merits." 8. In the light of above submissions as well as observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Devarajan (supra), this Court deems it just and proper to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and order dated 24.08.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sikar in Criminal Revision Petition No.91/2015 is quashed and set aside with the direction that the revision petition filed by the petitioner shall be decided on merits after hearing both the parties. Parties are directed to remain present before the revisional Court on 03.12.2025. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respective parties are directed to instruct their respective parties to appear before the revisional Court for arguments on revision petition. Looking to the fact that the revision petition was dismissed in the year 2015, the revisional Court is expected to decide the same expeditiously. 10. Criminal miscellaneous petition stands allowed accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /49