[2026:RJ-JP:16643] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1871/2022 Narottam Lal Swarnkar @ Sethi S/o Shri Navrang Prasad Soni, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Khori, Shahpura, District Jaipur Rural (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Public Prosecutor. 2. Victim W/o Shri Mahendra Kumawat, R/o G-37, Path No. 06, Vijaybadi, Sikar Road, Murlipura, Jaipur (West)(Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharamsheel Sharma for Mr. Anshuman Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP Mr. S. Gaharana JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/04/2026 1. The instant misc. petition is listed before this Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided on 15.01.2026), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in various matters, interim orders have been passed in criminal revision petitions and petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as a result of which trial relating to serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, dowry death, etc., could not proceed and remained stalled/held up due to the passage of considerable time. 2. Directions have been issued to this Court and other High Courts to take up such like matters which are pending since long, [2026:RJ-JP:16643] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1871/2022] on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring the hearings to subsequent dates. 3. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 10.02.2022, passed by Special Judge, POCSO Act, Cases No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. for issuig summons for production of the documents mentioned at para Nos. 24, 25 & 26 in the charge-sheet has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge-sheet for the offences under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), 376D, 377 & 384 IPC read with Section 5/6 of POCSO Act, 2012 has been submitted against the petitioner before the Court of Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur. Reference of certain FIRs and the conclusion report of the same has been made in para Nos. 24, 25 & 26, but the copies of the same were not supplied to the petitioner along with the charge-sheet. Hence, under these circumstances, an application was submitted by the petitioner for issuing summons to produce the copies of the same and providing the same to the petitioner. However, the said application has been rejected by the court below vide impugned order dated 10.02.2022. He submits that unless and until, these documents are summoned and supplied to the petitioner he would not be in a position to put his case and argue his defence at the stage of framing of charge. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 5. Per contra learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the complainant opposed the arguments raised by the counsel [2026:RJ-JP:16643] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1871/2022] for the petitioner and submitted that the documents which have been mentioned are different FIRs registered with different Police Stations and a reference of the same has been given in para Nos. 24, 25 & 26 of the charge-sheet. The petitioner can obtain the certified copies of these documents from the Concerned Court and take the benefit of the same at the appropriate stage of the trial, as these documents are public documents. He further submits that much water has flown after passing of the impugned order prosecution evidence is about to close and the trial has reached its final stage. Hence, under these circumstances interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant petition is liable to be rejected. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the record indicates that charge-sheet for the abovestated offences has been submitted against the petitioner way back in the year 2021 and the trial is at the stage of framing of charge, when an application under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been submitted against the petitioner for summoning the documents mentioned in para Nos. 24, 25 & 26 of the charge-sheet. Perusal of the charge-sheet indicates that reference of certain FIRs and conclusion report has been mentioned therein. The petitioner is always at liberty to get certified copies of the same, if these documents are at all relevant for the purposes of his defence. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Court below has not committed any error in passing the order impugned and rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. [2026:RJ-JP:16643] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1871/2022] 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant petition stands disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to produce the aforesaid document on the record of the Trial Court after obtaining certified copies of the same those documents are relevant for just decision of the case. 10. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Shivam/2