[2026:RJ-JP:27567] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9167/2022 URN: CRLMP / 15854U / 2022 Smt. Triveni Devi Gupta W/o Shri Radhey Shyam Agrawal, R/o Mangal Bhawan Kalyan Colony Station Road Bayana District Bharatpur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Radheyshyam Rathore S/o Shri Ghasilal, R/o Village Bhilwadi Tehsil Pachpahad District Jhalawar (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/07/2026 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed the criminal misc. petition filed by present petitions may kindly be allowed and the learned trail court 9 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Bayana District Bharatpur) may kindly been directed to decided the application / case No. 11/2017 title Triveni Devi v/s Radhey shyam Rathore, within two-three month or Expeditiously, in the interest of justice Any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit in favor of the petitioner may also be awarded to the petitioner.” 2. By way of filing the instant petition, a prayer has been made for issuing directions to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, District Bharatpur to decide the Application No.11/2017 [2026:RJ-JP:27567] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-9167/2022] expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of 2- 3 months. 3. When the matter was listed before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 23.11.2023, the following detailed order was passed: ''Heard and perused the material available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner who is presently aged about 83 years, filed a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act on 29.11.2010, against accused/respondent Radheshyam Rathore before the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, District Bharatpur. Vide order dated 02.02.2013, the learned trial court allowed the complaint case of the petitioner and awarded one year simple imprisonment to the accused respondent with fine of Rs.95,00,000 (Rupees Ninety-five lacs). Out of the total fine amount of Rs.95,00,000/-, Rs.94,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the petitioner as compensation. The said judgment of conviction dated 02.02.2013 was challenged by the present petitioner as well as the accused respondent by way of filing separate appeals before the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, No.1, Bayana, District Bharatpur. However, both these appeals of the petitioner and the accused-respondent were dismissed by the learned appellate court vide common order dated 17.10.2016 and affirmed the judgment dated 02.02.2013. Thereafter, both the petitioner and the accused- respondent preferred separate revision petitions before this Court. Both the revision petitions were decided by a common order dated 31.1.2018. The revision petition preferred by the accused respondent was dismissed. Though, the revision petition of the petitioner seeking enhancement of the sentence, was also dismissed but the order of sentence was modified and it was ordered that out of the fine amount to the tune of Rs.95,00,000/-, 94,90,000/- be disbursed to the petitioner instead of Rs.94,00,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner/complainant that the accused-respondent Radheyshyam has not made compliance of the directions given by this Court as well as learned trial court and therefore, he moved an application under Section 421 Cr.P.C. before learned Addl. Chief Judicial [2026:RJ-JP:27567] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-9167/2022] Magistrate, Bayana District Bharatpur for recovery of the penalty amount, which has been awarded by the learned trial court and upheld by this Court. Dealing with the application of the petitioner filed under Section 421 Cr.P.C., learned ACJM Bayana has given directions to the District Collector, Jhalawar for recovering the penalty amount from the accused Radheyshyam and in pursuance of the directions of the learned ACJM, the District Collector has directed the Tehsildar Pachpahad District Jhalawar to initiate the auction proceeding against the accused Radheyshyam. The Tehsildar concerned has also completed the auction proceedings and submitted the auction report to the District Collector on 09.06.2023 for approval thereof. Vide order dated 27.07.2023, the ACJM, Bayana has clearly stated that the District Collector, Jhalawar is the only competent authority to take the appropriate action and to finalize the auction proceedings but till date, the District Collector has not finalized the auction proceedings whereas the fact of the matter is that auction proceedings have been completed on 08.06.2023. By way of the instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought for direction to the learned trial court for early disposal of the proceedings arising out of the application under Section 421 Cr.P.C. (Case No.11/2017: Smt. Triveni Devi vs Radheyshyam Rathore) pending in the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, District Bharatpur on the ground of her old age and health issues. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the said application under Section 421 Cr.P.C. was filed on 23.12.2016 and notice whereof was issued to the accused respondent on 05.01.2017. He further submits that the accused respondent is already represented by his counsel in this matter as power has been filed in this matter on behalf of the accused respondent before the learned trial court on 23.05.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Tehsildar Pachpahad, District Jhalawar has already completed the auction proceedings against the accused Radheyshyam and he has submitted the auction report on 09.06.2023 to the District Collector, Jhalawar for approval of the auction proceedings. [2026:RJ-JP:27567] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-9167/2022] However, till date the auction proceedings could not be finalized without any reason or rhyme. He submits that the petitioner is an old aged lady of 83 years. She is also suffering from various ailments and thus, she has a legitimate right and expectation of receiving the compensation amount, awarded in her favour ten years back in the year 2013. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case especially the old age of the petitioner who is around 83 years and the accused respondent has already exhausted almost all the legal remedies available to him, challenging the judgment of conviction dated 02.02.2013, the misc. petition is disposed of with direction to learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bayana, District Bharatpur that he shall make serious and concrete endeavour to conclude the proceedings of Case No.11/2017: Smt. Triveni Devi vs Radheyshyam Rathore, arising out of the application under Section 421 Cr.P.C. pending before him within a period of two months from receiving certified copy of this order. In case of non-compliance of the directions given by the trial court to the revenue authorities including District Collector, Jhalawar, appropriate legal proceedings may be initiated against them as per law. List this case on 01.03.2024 for receiving compliance report.” 4. Perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that it was observed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the petitioner is a super senior citizen of the age of 83 years and she has exhausted all the remedies available to her, but in-spite of making all serious efforts, the application No.11/2017 under Section 421 Cr.P.C. has not been decided. 5. This Court, vide the aforesaid order, issued directions to the Court below to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending application within a period of two months. It was also observed that in case non-compliance of the order is done at the end of the Trial Court or the revenue authorities, appropriate proceedings would be initiated against them. [2026:RJ-JP:27567] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-9167/2022] 6. A compliance report has been placed on the record by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Bahaya, District Bharatpur dated 29.05.2026. The same is reproduced as under: “dekad%& 47 fnukad%& 29@5@26 çs"kd%& vfrfjä eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV la-1 c;kuk ftyk Hkjriqj çsf"kfr%& Jheku~ jftLVªkj ¼U;kf;d½ jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ihB t;iqj] jktLFkku fo"k;%& ,l-ch fØfeuy fel- fiVh'ku 9167@2022 f=os.khnsoh cuke LVsV v‚Q jktLFkku o vU; rkjh[k is'kh 18-07-2026 dh LVsVl fjiksVZ fHktokus ckcr~A lanHkZ%& Jhekuth dk i=kad 6643 fnukad 25-05-2026 ds de esaA egksn; th] mi;qZä fo"k;kUrxZr ,oa lUnfHkZr i= ds de esa fuosnu gS fd çkfFkZ;k f=os.kh nsoh us fnukad 23-12-2016 dks ,d çkFkZuk i= fo#) vUrxZr /kkjk 421 lh vkj ih lh vçkFkhZ jk/ks';ke is'k dj ;g dFku fd;s gSa fd çkfFkZ;k us ,d ifjokn i= varxZr /kkjk 138 ,uvkbZ ,DV U;k;ky; esa çLrqr fd;k Fkk] ftlesa U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 02-02-2013 dks vçkFkhZ jk/ks';ke dks nks"kfl) djrs gq, ,d o"kZ ds lk/kkj.k dkjkokl o 95 yk[k #i;s tqekZus o vne vnk;xh tqekZuk rhu ekg ds vfrfjä lk/kkj.k dkjokl ls nafMr fd;k x;k FkkA fu.kZ; esa ;g Hkh vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd tqekZus dh jkf'k tek gksus ij vihy u gksus dh lwjr esa ckn xqtjus fe;kn vihy tqekZuk jkf'k esa ls 94 yk[k #i;s ifjoknh dks crkSj {kfriwfrZ vnk fd;s tk;saA mä fu.kZ; dh vihy vçkFkhZ jk/ks';ke }kjk dh xbZ ,oa ekuuh; vihyh; U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 17-10-2016 dks vihy [kkfjt djrs gq, fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh iqf"V dh xbZA var esa çkfFkZ;k us naMkns'k esa vf/kjksfir fd;s x;s tqekZus jkf'k dks vçkFkhZ dh py o vpy laifÙk ls olwy fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA çkFkhZ us vius çkFkZuk i= ds lkFk vçkFkhZ jk/ks';ke dh laifÙk;ksa dk fooj.k is'k fd;kA mä çkFkZuk i= esa dk;Zokgh djrs gq, vçkFkhZ jk/ks';ke dh laifÙk;ksa dks dqdZ o uhyke djkdj çkfFkZ;k dks vHkh rd 38 yk[k 90 gtkj #i;s olwy dj fnyok;s tk pqds gSaA 'ks"k jkf'k 55 yk[k 10 gtkj #i;s dh olwyh cdk;k gSA vçkFkhZ jk/ks';ke dh py ,oa vpy laifÙk dks dqdZ o uhyke fd;k tk pqdk gSA i=koyh ij vkbZ ftyk dysDVj >kykokM rglhynkj iapigkj dh fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj vçkFkhZ jk/ks';ke dh vc dksbZ py o vpy laifÙk ugha gS] ftls dqdZ o uhyke fd;k tkdj olwyh djk;h tk ldsA vçkFkhZ jk/ks';ke dk osru/kkjh gksuk Hkh çkfFkZ;k us tkfgj ugha fd;k gSA i=koyh esa fnukad 06-02-2025 dks çkfFkZ;k dks vknsf'kr fd;k x;k fd ;fn os vçkFkhZ dh dksbZ laifÙk lwph is'k djuk pkgsa rks dj ldrh gSA rRi'pkr~ çkfFkZ;k ds vf/koäk }kjk yxkrkj laifÙk lwph is'k djus gsrq le; pkgk tk jgk gS] ysfdu vc rd dksbZ laifÙk lwph is'k ugha dh gSA i=koyh fnukad 18-07-2026 dks çkfFkZ;k ds vf/koäk }kjk laifÙk lwph is'k djus gsrq le; ekaxs tkus ij laifÙk lwph is'k gksus ds fy, fu;r gSA fjiksVZ Jhekuth dh lsok esa okLrs voyksdu ,oa mfpr dk;Zokgh lknj çsf"kr gSA vknj lfgr A vfrfjä eq[; U;f;d eftLVªsV la- 1 c;kuk ftyk Hkjriqj” [2026:RJ-JP:27567] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-9167/2022] 7. Perusal of the aforesaid report indicates that the list of properties has not been submitted, hence, in absence of the same, the proceedings could not be concluded. It is further revealed that even a direction was also issued for production of list of properties and the case has been posted for 18.07.2026. 8. Considering the above, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition with the expectation that the requisite information, including list of properties, would be furnished by the party to the litigation expeditiously, preferably within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 9. In case the requisites are submitted by the party to the case, it is expected from the Court below to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending application bearing No.11/2017 expeditiously as early as possible, preferably within a period of one month thereafter. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 11. In case the matter is not decided by the Court below within above stipulated time, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court again by way of filing appropriate application seeking recall of this order and revival of the instant petition. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/15