[2026:RJ-JP:13057] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4617/2019 Vijay Bhatra S/o Late Shri Shyam Sundar Bhatra, aged about 36 Years, resident present M/s Bhatra Food Products, Infront of Power House, Morija Road, Kasba Chomu, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP. 2. Kamal Kumar Bhatra S/o Late Shri Shyam Sundar Bhatra R/o Brahmpuri, kaswa Chomu, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Raj. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 773/2015 Vijay Bhatra S/o Late Shri Shyam Sundar Bhatra, aged about 36 Years, resident present M/s Bhatra Food Products, Infront of Power House, Morija Road, Kasba Chomu, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP. 2. Kamal Kumar Bhatra S/o Late Shri Shyam Sundar Bhatra R/o Brahmpuri, kaswa Chomu, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Raj. For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Mr. M.K.Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP Mr. Samarth Kumar Jain Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Jain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/03/2026 1. The instant misc. petitions are listed before this Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in [2026:RJ-JP:13057] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-4617/2019] 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, on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring the hearings to subsequent dates. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4617/2019:- 3. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 31.08.2018, passed by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.22, Jaipur Metropolitan Headquarter Chomu, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 3964/2014 by which charges have been framed against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Revisional Court i.e. Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge No.20, Jaipur Metropolitan, Headquarter Chomu in Criminal Revision No. 36/2018, whereby the Revisional Court vide order dated 30.04.2019 dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner, while affirming the order dated 31.08.2018. [2026:RJ-JP:13057] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-4617/2019] 5. Aggrieved by both the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant- respondent lodged an FIR against the petitioner which resulted in a Final Report (Negative) against which a protest petition was filed by the complainant-respondent. Counsel submits that the learned Magistrate vide order dated 15.06.2012 passed an order, directing the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chomu to get the investigation verified and submit the report before the Court in this regard. Counsel submits that there is no provision to get the Final Report verified, hence the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing the S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.450/2013. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.03.2013, while disposing of the aforesaid petition, quashed and set-aside the order dated 15.6.2012 and remitted the matter to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Counsel submits that the aforesaid direction was not followed by the learned Magistrate and again, cognizance was taken against the petitioner vide order dated 20.12.2014 for the above stated offences against which a revision petition was submitted by the petitioner, however, the same was also rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge No. 20, Headquarter Chomu Jaipur Metropolitan, vide order dated 07.02.2015. The order dated 07.02.2015 was assailed by the petitioner by way of filing the instant connected S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 773/2015 and during pendency of the said petition, the learned Magistrate framed charges against the petitioner for the above stated offences. Counsel submits that the order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this [2026:RJ-JP:13057] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-4617/2019] Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 450/2013 has not been followed by the Magistrate and subsequently not only cognizance has been taken against the petitioner but charges have also been framed against him which is not tenable in the eyes of law. Hence, no offence is made out and the impugned order be quashed and set aside. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the order dated 05.03.2013 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 450/2013 was followed by the learned Magistrate and thereafter, statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded and on the basis of the evidence available on record, cognizance was taken against the petitioner vide order dated 20.12.2014 for the offence under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC against which connected S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 773/2015 was filed before this Court in which no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner and charges were framed against him by the Trial Court vide order dated 31.08.2018. The order of framing of charges against the petitioner was assailed by the petitioner, by way of filing Criminal Revision No. 36/2018 and the same was also dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 30.04.2019. Counsel submits that under these circumstances and on the basis of prima facie evidence available on record, against the petitioner, charges have been framed against him by the Courts below by passing a reasoned and cogent order, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the present petition is liable to be rejected. [2026:RJ-JP:13057] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-4617/2019] 8. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 9. This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner that after remitting the matter by this Court, to the learned Magistrate, while deciding S. B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.450/2013 vide order dated 05.03.2013, the learned Magistrate passed the same cognizance order and the cognizance order should have been passed on the basis of the protest petition/ complaint submitted by the complainant or on the basis of the statements of the complainant and other witnesses. The aforesaid order was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by way of filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 773/2015 in which no interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner. Hence under these circumstances, the Trial Court proceeded further in the matter and after hearing the arguments on charge(s), on the basis of prima facie case and evidence available on record, framed the charges against the petitioner for the above stated offences. The aforesaid order was further upheld by the Revisional Court vide order dated 30.04.2019. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court at the time of framing of charge(s), only prima facie case is required to be seen and charges can be framed against the accused merely on the basis of the suspicion. The correctness and genuineness of defence of the accused is not required to be seen at the stage of framing of charges. 11. This Court finds no error in the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below which warrant any interference by this Court. [2026:RJ-JP:13057] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-4617/2019] 12. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 773/2015:- 13. Looking to the fact that charges have been framed against the petitioner, while in the instant matter, the order of cognizance has been assailed by the petitioner and the revision petition against the order of framing of charges has been rejected by the Revisional Court, hence under these circumstances, this petition has become infructuous. 14. The present petition stands dismissed as rendered infructuous. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 15. Before parting with the order, this Court deems it just and proper to issue a direction to the Trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the criminal case pending before it, expeditiously as early as possible, as the matter pertains to the year 2011. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/3-4