[2026:RJ-JP:17769] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 464/2017 1. Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Mohanlal, R/o Chainpura Mohalla, Pisangan, District Ajmer. 2. Hanuman S/o Shri Mohanlal, R/o Chainpura Mohalla, Pisangan, District Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through P.P. 2. Hari Prasad S/o Shri Babu Lal Kansara, R/o Village Govindghar, Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishnu Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP with Ms. Neha Goyal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant petition a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 17.12.2016, passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Ajmer by which the Criminal Revision Petition No.156/2014 submitted by the petitioner against the order dated 21.02.2013, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pushkar in Criminal Case No. 153/2013 has been rejected and the order dated 21.02.2013 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 420 IPC has been uphold. 2. Perusal of the record indicates that the revision petition submitted by the petitioner against the order of cognizance, has [2026:RJ-JP:17769] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-464/2017] not been rejected on its merits but the same has been rejected on the technical grounds i.e. being barred by limitation. 3. Cognizance was taken against the petitioner vide order dated 21.02.2013 and certified copy of the same was provided to the petitioner on 05.06.2013 thereafter, revision petition was submitted by the petitioner on 07.08.2013 and treating the revision petition as time barred, the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 17.12.2016. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reason for delay in filing the revision petition was explained by the petitioner by way of filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay. Those reasons have not been considered by the Trial Court and the revision petition has been rejected by treating the same as barred by limitation. 5. In the considered opinion of this Court, the reason for delay has been well explained, hence, the Revisional Court was supposed to hear and decide the revision petition on its merits. 6. On this account alone, the order dated 17.12.2016 passed by the Revisional Court stands quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Revisional Court to decide the same, after hearing the arguments of both sides, on its merits strictly in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Revisional Court on 14.05.2026. Since the respondent is not present, let a copy of this order be sent to the respondent on his residential address. Even, if the respondent fails to appear before the Revisional Court, it is expected from the Revisional Court to issue fresh notice to the respondent before passing final order. [2026:RJ-JP:17769] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-464/2017] 7. This order would be effective only if the trial is still pending against the petitioner and in case the trial has already been concluded against the petitioners, then this order would not have any bearing. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Shivam/46