[2025:RJ-JP:48337] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6238/2025 Omprakash Son Of Bhanaram Saini, Resident Of Rohda Wali Dhani Nawaldi, Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Ramrikhdas Charitable Trust, S-80, Panchsheel Park, Nayi Dilli, Through Power Of Attorney Kailash Chand Joshi Son Of Hanuman Prasad Joshi, Resident Of Ward No. 12, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bau Lal Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Devi Singh, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/11/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu in Criminal Case No.213/2017, by which charges have been framed against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted by the petitioner before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu. However, the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 10.06.2025. 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, now the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. [2025:RJ-JP:48337] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6238/2025] 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the subject land. He has purchased the subject land through a valid sale deed. Therefore, under these circumstances, no offence is made out against the petitioner in order to proceed against him for the above stated offences. Hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Perusal of the record as well as the impugned order dated 13.01.2025 indicate that learned Trial Judge has framed charges against the petitioner under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC in a cursory manner and no reasons have been assigned therein. 8. Though it is a settled proposition of law that at the stage of framing of charge only prima facie case is required to be seen and the defence of the accused cannot be looked into, but at the same time, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the charge order cannot be passed in a superficial and casual manner. 9. It is expected from the learned Trial Judge to pass a detailed and reasoned order for coming to the conclusion as to how a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. 10. On this count alone, the order dated 13.01.2025 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside. The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for passing a fresh reasoned and speaking order [2025:RJ-JP:48337] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6238/2025] within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court for compliance. 12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/40