[2026:RJ-JP:12181] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6014/2019 Smt. Maya Devi W/o Shri Balwan Singh, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Hasanpur Post Koriyabas Tehsil Narnol, District Mahendragarh, Haryana. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp. 2. Smt. Anju Yadav W/o Shri Vinod Kumar Yadav, R/o 3, Rath Nagar, Ballaboda, Alwar, At Present R/o A-129, Ashok Vihar, Karamchari Colony, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Kumar Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 30.06.2018 passed by the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar, I.e, the Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.3/2017 by which the revision petition submitted by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 23.11.2016 has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner lodged an FIR against the accused-respondent, wherein several allegations under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 & 471 IPC were levelled, but without any investigation, the Police has submitted the final report “negative”, against which a protest petition was submitted by the petitioner, but the final report “negative” [2026:RJ-JP:12181] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6014/2019] submitted by the police was accepted and the protest petition submitted by the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned order dated 23.11.2016 by the Court of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Alwar. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the Revisional Court, i.e., the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar by way of filing revision petition, however, the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 30.06.2018 by passing the impugned order in cursory manner without recording any reason, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Perusal of the impugned order dated 30.06.2018 indicates that this order has been passed in the most cursory manner as no reasons have been assigned while rejecting the revision petition submitted by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Alwar. 5. It is settled proposition of law that whenever any order is passed by any competent Court of law, it is expected from the Presiding Officer to pass a detailed reasoned order, while in the instant case, the impugned order has been passed in cursory manner while deciding the case and the finding has been concluded merely in one paragraph and no legality has been found in the same. There is no application of mind on the facts and evidence available on the record. [2026:RJ-JP:12181] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6014/2019] 6. On this count alone, the impugned order passed by the Revisional Court is not legally sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be and is hereby quashed and set-aside. 7. The matter is remitted to the Revisional Court, i.e., learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Alwar to pass a fresh reasoned order after providing due opportunity of hearing to both the sides. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Alwar on 15.04.2026. It is expected from the Revisional Court to decide the revision petition submitted by the petitioner after affording due opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/13