[2026:RJ-JP:2280] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1416/2018 Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Narayan Sahay, R/o A- 98, Indra Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through PP. 2. Jagmohan Jasoriya S/o Shri Gopal Lal Jasoriya, R/o B-63, Vivekanand Colony, Khetri House, Police Thana Sanjay Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3057/2016 Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Narayan Sahay, Aged about 47 years, R/o A-98, Indra Colony, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Shri Jagmohan Jasoriya S/o Shri Gopal Lal Jasoriya, Aged about 61 years, R.o B-23, Vivekandnd Colony, Khetri House, Police Station Circle, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP, Mr. Anirudh Singh, Mr. R.K. Daga HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 19/01/2026 In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1416/2018:- 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.04.2017 passed by learned Additional District Magistrate Jaipur City [2026:RJ-JP:2280] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1416/2018] (South) in case No.16/2015 titled as State Vs Jagmohan Jasoriya & Ors. and order dated 07.12.2017, passed by the Court of Special Judge CBI cases No.4, Jaipur, in Misc. case No.18/2017, title as Jagmohan Jasoriya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide order dated 03.12.2015 disputed property except main temple, two rooms, kitchen kutia and chowk of temple was put under surveillance of SHO Police Station Bani Park and SHO Police Station Bani Park was appointed as receiver. It is also contended that the said order was passed on the report of Police Station Bani Park dated 28.12.2015 whereby, after enquiry, it was found that there was likelihood of breach of peace. It is also contended that vide impugned order, the said order was modified and the property was released and SHO was further directed to enquire about the position of rest of the 12 rooms. Lateron, vide order dated 19.05.2016, the review petition was decided Court of Addition District & Session Judge No.18, Jaipur Metropolitan and order dated 20.01.2016 was affirmed. It is also contended that both the orders passed by the Courts below are against the settled position of law. There was positive report with regard to the likelihood of breach of peace and both the concerned Court below wrongly passed the order de-attaching the property. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner place reliance on judgments: 1. Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors., AIR 2001 Supreme Court 43. 2. Shamim Alam Vs. Sajjid Hussain & Anr., SLP (Crl.) 2755 of 2004, Supreme Court. 3. Narendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 2017(2) WLC (Raj.) UC 561, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. [2026:RJ-JP:2280] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1416/2018] 4. Th. Sampati Vikram Deo Vs. The State, S.B. Criminal Reference No.8 of 1953 decided on 03.03.1953, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. 5. Gambha Vs. Hem Singh, S.B. Criminal Reference No.76 of 1953, Rajasthan High Court. 6. Umrao Vs. Sheonarain, S.B. Criminal Revision No.304 of 174 decided on 12.08.1975, Rajasthan High Court. 4. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the respondents that the said orders are justified and no interference is required. There was no likelihood of any breach of peace. It is also contended that the petitioner filed a civil suit, however, it was dismissed during course of the pendency of these applications, the trust has been registered and against the same, the petitioner has not approached to the commissioner under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. The dispute between the petitioner and the trust is entirely a civil dispute and there is no likelihood of any breach of peace, the criminal misc. petition is devoid of any merits, hence, required to be dismissed. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not refuted that after the said dispute, petitioner had approached the civil Court and his civil suit was dismissed. Though, the petitioner expresses that civil writ and civil first appeal is pending against the order of dismissal and against the appointment of trustee, however, it is apparent that the parties have approached the civil Court and their is no imminent danger of breach of peace and even the possession of the disputed property is with the trustees. No fruitful purpose shall be served to keep the present petition pending and to alter or modify the order passed by the Courts below. [2026:RJ-JP:2280] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1416/2018] 7. Therefore, considering the aforesaid fact, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Courts below. 8. The present criminal misc. petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. I n S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3057/2016:- In the light of the judgment passed in Criminal Misc. Petition No.1416/2018, the instant present criminal misc. petition is also disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/Rinchu/19-20