[2026:RJ-JP:16072] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 11/2019 Prabhulal S/o Shri Ghasiram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Village Manoharpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs. 1/1. Smt. Kanta Devi W/o Late Prabhulal 1/2. Kanhaiyalal S/o Late Prabhulal, Aged About 24 Years 1/3. Mukesh Kamal Morya S/o Late Prabhulal 1/4. Ravi Morya S/o Late Prabhulal 1/5. Ajay Morya S/o Late Prabhulal ----Petitioners Versus Sohan Lal S/o Late Shri Sheyobus, Aged About 76 Years, R/o Plot No. 63, Roop Nagar Colony, Manoharpura, Post Jagatpura, Sanganer, Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs. 1/1. Ramawtar Morya S/o Late Sohanlal 1/2. Maheshchand Morya S/o Late Sohanlal 1/3. Meera Devi W/o Late Sohanlal 1/4. Rajan D/o Late Sohanlal 1/5. Janaki D/o Late Sohanlal ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 271/2025 1. Shrimati Kanta Devi W/o Late Prabhulal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Plot No. 63, Roop Nagar Colony, Manoharpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur. 2. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Late Prabhulal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Plot No. 63, Roop Nagar Colony, Manoharpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur. 3. Mukesh Kumar Mourya S/o Late Prabhulal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Plot No. 63, Roop Nagar Colony, Manoharpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur. 4. Ravi Mourya S/o Late Prabhulal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Plot No. 63, Roop Nagar Colony, Manoharpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur. [2026:RJ-JP:16072] (2 of 8) [CRLW-11/2019] 5. Ajay Mourya S/o Late Prabhulal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Plot No. 63, Roop Nagar Colony, Manoharpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Sohan Lal S/o Shyobaksh, Age 75 Years (Since Deceased) R/o Plot No. 63, Roop Nagar Colony, Manoharpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur. 1/1. Ramavtar Mourya S/o Late Sohan Lal, R/o Plot No. 63, Roop Nagar Colony, Manoharpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur. 1/2. Mahesh Chand Mourya S/o Late Sohan Lal, R/o Plot No. 63, Roop Nagar Colony, Manoharpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur. 1/3. Meera Devi W/o Late Sohan Lal, R/o Plot No. 63, Roop Nagar Colony, Manoharpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur. 1/4. Raju S/o Late Sohan Lal, R/o Plot No. 63, Roop Nagar Colony, Manoharpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur. 1/5. Janki D/o Late Sohan Lal, R/o Plot No. 63, Roop Nagar Colony, Manoharpura, Jagatpura, Jaipur. 2. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Singh Kushwaha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakar, PP Mr. Ramawtar Mourya, Mr. Anil Mourya JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/04/2026 1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel appearing for both the parties, arguments have been heard together and these petitions are decided by the following order:- S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 11/2019:- [2026:RJ-JP:16072] (3 of 8) [CRLW-11/2019] 2. Instant petition has been preferred against the order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the Court of the Additional District Magistrate (East), Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ADM’) by which the application containing objections was submitted by the petitioner with regard to wrong marking of the exhibits pertaining to a Patta i.e., Ex. 2 has been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings under Sections 145, 146 & 147 Cr.P.C. are pending between the parties before the Court of the ADM. During the course of evidence twelve documents were submitted by the respondents on the record which included a Patta which was cancelled by the competent authority wayback & in spite of above the Patta was ordered to be taken on record by exhibiting the same. Counsel submitted that once the said Patta has been cancelled, then the same cannot be allowed to be taken on record and be marked as exhibit. He submits that an objection in this regard was taken on the very same day but the learned Magistrate has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner on a ground that the objection was taken after a delay of more than two and a half months. This fact is contrary to the record, rather the application was submitted on the very same day along with the documents to be taken on record. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the Patta in question was validly issued by the competent authority and copy of the same was [2026:RJ-JP:16072] (4 of 8) [CRLW-11/2019] produced on the record. The genuineness of the Patta cannot be doubted or disputed, hence, the Court below has not committed any error in taking the same on record. He further submits that in the meantime, the proceedings of the aforesaid case proceeded and a detailed cross-examination has already been done by the petitioner on the Patta as well as other documents and thereafter the case was posted for final arguments. Hence, under these circumstances, at this stage, such objection taken by the petitioner is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the instant petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that both the parties are facing the proceedings initiated under Sections 145, 146 & 147 Cr.P.C. and during pendency of the same the respondents placed certain documents i.e., Ex. 1 to 12 on the record. It appears that an objection was taken by the petitioner to not to take the Patta i.e., Ex. 2 on the record on the pretext that the same was cancelled wayback, however, the aforesaid objection by the petitioner was turned down by the Court of the ADM by passing the order impugned and thereafter the case has proceeded and the statements of the respondents were recorded, & when the cross-examination was done questions were raised about the said Patta. 7. Whether the Patta in question i.e., Ex. 2 is genuine or not, whether the same has been cancelled or not, this fact can be [2026:RJ-JP:16072] (5 of 8) [CRLW-11/2019] appreciated by the Court of the ADM at the time of passing the final judgment. Once the documents have been allowed to be taken on record and a detailed cross-examination has been done with regard to the said document, the genuineness of the same can be examined by the Court of the ADM at the time of final arguments. Hence, this Court finds no error in the order passed by the Court below and the petition is liable to be and is hereby rejected. S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 271/2025:- 8. The instant petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 26.06.2024 by which the evidence of the petitioner has been closed by the Court of the ADM. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner for leading his evidence. Counsel submits that the evidence-affidavit of the petitioner was produced on the record on 13.03.2024 and thereafter the case was posted for 28.03.2024 wherein on the said date certain documents were taken on record and time was sought for filling reply to the aforesaid evidence-affidavit. Counsel submits that the matter proceeded for the next date i.e., 26.06.2024 and on the said day the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Court below by observing that the case is lying pending for the last more than 10 years and the petitioner wants to delay the proceedings, hence, his evidence was closed. 10. Counsel submits that unless and until an opportunity of producing evidence is granted to the petitioner, he would not be in [2026:RJ-JP:16072] (6 of 8) [CRLW-11/2019] a position to submit his defence in a proper way. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, he has challenged the validity of the same impugned order dated 26.06.2024 by way of filing a revision petition before the Revisional Court i.e., the Court of the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.17, Jaipur Metropolitan and during the pendency of the same, the same order has been assailed before this Court also by way of filing the instant petition. Counsel submits that the said revision petition submitted by the petitioner was rejected by the Revisional Court vide impugned order dated 20.09.2018 and the said order passed by the Revisional Court has not been assailed by the petitioner before this Court. Hence, instant petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. 12. In rebuttal, counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petition was withdrawn from the Revisional Court because instant petition was submitted before this Court, hence, the revision petition has not been decided on its merits and demerits rather the same was withdrawn. 13. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 14. Perusal of the record indicates that the proceedings under Section 145, 147 & 146 Cr.P.C. have been initiated against both the parties in the year 2013. The case remained pending for recording the evidence of the respondent till 26.06.2024 and [2026:RJ-JP:16072] (7 of 8) [CRLW-11/2019] thereafter the case was posted for recording the evidence of the petitioner i.e., for 13.03.2024 and on the very same day the evidence-affidavit was produced on the record and the case was posted for cross-examination by the respondent with the petitioner, however, two dates were posted thereafter & certain application and reply for the same was submitted by either side and finally, the evidence of the petitioner was closed by the Court of the ADM vide order impugned dated 26.06.2024 on the ground that several opportunities were granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence and the case was lying pending for the last 10 years. Hence, under these circumstances and considering the fact that the petitioner might wanted to delay the proceedings, hence, his evidence was closed. 15. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid finding so recorded by the learned Court of the ADM is contrary to the record in fact, the matter was never delayed by the petitioner. The case was posted for the first time for recording the evidence on 13.03.2024 and on the very same day, his evidence-affidavit was produced on the record. Thereafter, two dates were posted and finally the order impugned has been passed on 26.06.2024. 16. By passing the order impugned, the Court below has deprived the petitioner to lead his evidence and produce his defence on the record. It is settled proposition of law that a fair opportunity is required to be given to both the sides to produce their evidence on the record and contest the matter pending between the rival sides. In the instant case, the principle of natural justice has been violated because no appropriate [2026:RJ-JP:16072] (8 of 8) [CRLW-11/2019] opportunity has been provided to the petitioner for leading his evidence, hence, under these circumstances, the order impugned dated 26.06.2024 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed and set aside. 17. Accordingly, the instant petition stands allowed and a last opportunity is granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence on the next date before the Trial Court. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Trial Court on 11-05-2026. It is expected from the Trial Court to record the evidence of the petitioner on the said date and if because of paucity of time, his evidence could not be recorded, then a short fixed date be given to the petitioner for the said purpose. 18. It is made clear in case the petitioner fails to avail the aforesaid opportunity on the next date, no further opportunity would be granted to the petitioner for leading his evidence. 19. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petitions stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 20. Before parting with this order, this Court deems it just and proper to issue a direction to the Court of the ADM to make all possible endeavors to decide the pending proceedings which are lying pending in his Court since last 13 years, without entertaining any unnecessary or unwarranted request of adjournment made by either side. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J PUNEET KUMAR /23-24