[2026:RJ-JP:9969] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4460/2014 Kalu Singh S/o Prem Singh, aged about 36 years, R/o Govindpura, P.s. Beawar Sadar, Distt. Ajmer Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp 2. Jaswant Choudhary S/o Shri Rikhab Chandr Choudhary, R/o Outside Nehru Gate, Beawar Distt. Ajmer Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, PP Mr. J.P. Gupta with Mr. Aditya Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/03/2026 1. Once again, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The earlier order sheet dated 18.11.2025 indicates that on that day as well, no one had put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. On the aforesaid date, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an order granting one more opportunity to the petitioner to argue the matter and it was made clear that, in case, the matter is not argued on the next date, appropriate orders would be passed for vacation of the interim order dated 12.11.2014. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that a very short issue is involved in this petition, so [2026:RJ-JP:9969] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4460/2014] instead of hearing the arguments on vacation of the interim order, the case be decided on its merits. 3. Perusal of the impugned order dated 08.10.2014 indicates that a vehicle, i.e., Tractor bearing No.RJ01R2541 alongwith a thrasher machine were seized in a Criminal Case No.152/2002 and after trial, the Ld. Judicial Magistrate (First Class) No.1, Beawer, District Ajmer acquitted the accused Hanuman Singh from the charges under Sections 287, 337 & 338 IPC vide judgment dated 03.09.2003 while giving benefit of doubt. While passing the aforesaid judgment, the supurdagi of the aforesaid seized vehicle was ordered to be given to the petitioner. 4. It appears that aggrieved by the aforesaid part of the judgment, the respondent submitted a revision petition No.16/2003 before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Beawer, District Ajmer. The said appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 20.07.2005 after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter was remitted to the Ld. Judicial Magistrate to pass a fresh order after hearing the arguments of both sides and after considering the documents/evidence produced by both sides, since both the petitioner as well as the respondent were claiming their right, title and interest over the vehicle in question. 5. It appears that the aforesaid judgment dated 20.07.2005 has not been assailed by either side before any Appellate/Revisional Court and the same has attained finality. 6. In pursuance of the aforesaid judgment dated 20.07.2005 when the matter was remitted to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, an order was passed on 10.08.2011 directing the petitioner to [2026:RJ-JP:9969] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4460/2014] deposit the vehicle in question in the custody of the Court for passing appropriate fresh orders after hearing rival submissions. 7. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Beawer District Ajmer by way of filing revision petition. However, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 08.10.2014 and the order dated 10.08.2011 passed by ld. Judicial Magistrate was upheld. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the Courts below, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition. 9. It appears that basically the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate by which he has been directed to submit the vehicle in question to the custody of the Court below for the purpose of passing appropriate fresh orders after hearing the claims of rival sides. This Court finds no error in the order impugned, as the matter has been remitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Beawer District Ajmer on earlier occasion vide judgment dated 20.07.2005 while deciding Revision Petition No.16/2003. 10. When this order has not been assailed before any appellate or revisional authority and the same has attained finality, hence, under these circumstances, Ld. Magistrate has no option except to pass the order dated 10.08.2011, so that the matter can be decided on its merits on the basis of rival claims made by the respective parties. 11. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no error in the impugned order passed by the Courts below and the same [2026:RJ-JP:9969] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4460/2014] warrants no interference of this Court. Hence, the instant criminal misc. petition is liable to be and is hereby rejected. 12. Before parting with this order, this Court deems it just and proper to issue further direction to the ld. Judicial Magistrate, Beawer District Ajmer to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending matter, expeditiously as early as possible, as the matter pertains to the year 2005 and more than two decades have passed thereafter. 13. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/21