[2026:RJ-JP:32828] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1154/2012 CNR: RJHC020114302012 | URN: CRLMP / 2154U / 2012 Manoj Sharma S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Sharma, Resident of Plot no. 654, 656, Mandir Kunj Bihari Ji, Gangori Bazar, Jaipur (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through PP, Jaipur Metropolitan Jaipur. 2. Dinesh Sharma S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, Resident of GA-49, Bhawani Nagar, Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj) 3. Vijay Kumar Gaur S/o Shri Anand Kishore, Resident of 658, Gangori Bazar , Kunj Bihari Ji Ka Mandir, Jaipur (Raj) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal Mr. Aditya Sharma Mr. Ajay Khedar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 18/08/2026 1. Instant misc. petition is preferred by petitioner- complainant aggrieved from order dated 27.03.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge no.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur thereby upheld the order dated 06.01.2012 in criminal case no. 91/2010 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate no.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. 2. Considered submissions of learned counsel for petitioner and learned public prosecutor and perused the material placed on record. [2026:RJ-JP:32828] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1154/2012] 3. The complainant has lodged FIR no. 237/2010 at P.S. Kotwali on 25.07.2010 and the matter was investigated by police and the police has submitted a report with following conclusion:- ^^nkSjkus r¶rh'k c;ku eqLrxhl Jh eukst 'kekZ] xokgku Jherh dykorh 'kekZ] Jherh js[kk 'kekZ] Jherh pUnzdkUrk] Jh fot; dqekj xkSM ds gLc nQk 161 CRPC esa fy;s x;sA ?kVuk LFky dk fujh{k.k dj uD'kk ekSdk d'khn fd;k x;kA ,oa iwNrkN vkl iMkSl ls dh x;h rks lkeus vk;k fd efUnj Jh dqUtfcgkjh th eas Jh jes'k pUn 'kekZ] Jherh dykorh] Jh pUnz'ks[kj] Jherh xhrk 'kekZ] Jh izse ukjk;.k o fot; dqekj xkSM dk fgLlk gS ftUgksaus lHkh ifjokj okyksa us vkilh cSBdj efUnj esa iwtk djus dk vkSljk cuk j[kk gS vksljk ds eqrkfcd ;s lHkh ifjokj okys efUj esa iwtk djrs gS iwoZ esa lHkh ifjokj okyksa esa cSBdj okrkZyki gq;h fd efUnj cgqr iqjkuk gks x;k ftlesa pwuk fxjrk gS rks fnus'k us dgk fd eSa efUnj esa VwV QwV dh ejEer djk nsrk gwaA rFkk tks [kpkZ yxsxk og eSa Lo;a ogu d:axk rks lHkkh dh lgefr gksus ij fnus'k 'kekZ us efUnj dh ewfrZ;ksa dks fnukad 19-07- 10 dks efUnj ls mBkdj cjkcj okys dejs esa j[k nh rks bl ckr dks ysdj ml fnu fnus'k 'kekZ o jes'k pUn ds iq= eukst 'kekZ esa vkil esa dgklquh gks x;h Fkh rks nksuksa i{k us Fkkus ij ifjokn is'k fd;s rFkk mlh le; nksuksa i{kksa esa vkilh le>kSrk gks tkus ij mDr ifjoknksa esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha pkgus rFkk efUnj dh ewfrZ ejEer ds ckn eku izfr"Bk ds vuqlkj mlh efUnj esa LFkkfir djus rFkk 'kkUrh O;oLFkk cuk;s j[kus ckcr nksuksa i{kksa us vius&vius fyf[kr izkFkZuk i= i'k fd;sA iwoZ dh fjiksVZ esa le>kSrk gksus ds ckotwn Hkh ifjoknh us mlh fnu dh ?kVuk ds ckjs esa fjiksVZ dks xyr QSgeh esa c<k p<k dj bLrxklk Jheku~ U;k;ky; esa is'k fd;k gSA lEiw.kZ r¶rh'k ls ekeyk ewfrZ pksjh djuk Fkk ifjoknh ds lkFk xSj lk;y }kjk ekjihV djuk efUnj dh /kkfeZd Hkkouk dks vk?kkr yxuk ugha ik;k x;k tcfd efUnj esa ejEer djkus ds fy;s lHkh ifjokj okyksa dh vkilh tqckuh lgefr gksus ij efUnj dh ewfrZ;k xSj lk;y }kjk eku izfr"Bk ds vuqlkj efUnj ls mBkdj nwljs dejs esa j[kuk ik;k rFkk efUnj dh ejEer ds ckn okil mlh LFkku ij izk.k izfr"Bk ds vuqlkj LFkkfir djuk lkeus vk;k gSA ifjoknh }kjk xyr Qgeh esa fjiksVZ dks c<k p<kdj Jheku~ U;k;ky; esa is'k djuk ik;k x;kA [2026:RJ-JP:32828] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1154/2012] vr% eqdnek gktk esa FR no. 91@2010 fnukad 30-7-2010 cflxs vne odw xyr Qgeh esa fdrk dj okLrs Lohd`fr Jheku~ dh lsok esa is'k gSA** 4. On the basis of said report a protest petition is filed and learned trial court has considered the material available on record including the statement of complainant recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and of the witness recorded under Section 202 of Cr.P.C. The order passed by the trial court indicate that the idols were removed to carry out the maintenance work and after completion of the work these were returned to original place. The conclusion drawn by the learned trial court was challenged before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court has also considered the statement of witnesses recorded by police and also by the trial court. Both the courts below have rightly considered the material and correctly drawn conclusion. 5. Having considered the entire material available on record and also the police report, I am of the considered view that no case is made out for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6. Hence, the instant criminal misc. petition is hereby dismissed. 7. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 21/CHETNA BEHRANI