[2025:RJ-JP:44344] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 500/2025 In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.9142/2022 Sushila Kathat D/o. Anand Kathat, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. The Superintendent Of Police, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. The Sho, Police Station Civil Lines, Distt. Ajmer, Rajasthan. 4. Shiv Pratap S/o. Bhanwar Singh Palada, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. 31, Sarveshwar Nagar, Civil Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. S. Hasan, Senior Counsel with Mr. Aquif Khan, Adv., Mr. Ishan Raj Khan, Adv. & Ms. Vandana Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 04/11/2025 1. Although, application for recalling the order dated 02.07.2025 earlier passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.9142/2022 has been filed by the petitioner-applicant with the contention that the earlier miscellaneous petition challenging FIR No.341/2022 filed by the petitioner was withdrawn by him on the statement made by learned Public Prosecutor that after investigation, negative final report has been prepared, in which no [2025:RJ-JP:44344] (2 of 2) [CRLMA-500/2025] offence has been made out against the petitioner. However, such negative final report was opposed by the complainant by way of filing the protest petition, in which cognizance was taken against the petitioner. Petitioner has challenged the cognizance order by way of filing the revision petition, therefore, dismissal of the earlier petition is being taken against the rights and interest of the petitioner. 2. The application has been opposed by learned Public Prosecutor by submitting that there is no scope of recalling the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submitted that taking of cognizance and further filing of revision petition are altogether different cause of action and on that ground, even otherwise, no recalling can be sought. 3. Heard and considered. 4. Without making any comments over the scope of Criminal Miscellaneous application for recalling, it is sufficient observe that the earlier petition was not pressed by the petitioner only on the ground of preparation of negative FR by the Police Authorities. Hence, in case, such negative FR was subsequently opposed and further proceedings took place, the petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue his remedies against the subsequent proceedings and order sought to be recalled would not come in the way of the petitioner. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /114