[2026:RJ-JP:23616] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6462/2016 Mainudeen, Son Of Rasula, R/o Bypass Road, Radhakishanpura, Police Station Sadar, Sikar, District Sikar Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through P.P. 2. Usman, Son Of Hussain, R/o Ward No.25, Sikar Near Pandiya Kuwa And By Pass Road, Radhakishanpura, Police Station Sadar, Sikar, District Sikar Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Order 29/06/2026 The present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayers:- "It is, therefore, most humbly parlayed that your Lordships may graciously be please to admit and allow this petition and complete record of the case be called for from the learned Courts below and further be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned orders Dated:02.11.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, No.4 Sikar in Cr. Revision No.45/2016(CIS No.425/2014) and order dated 30.07.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar by which the Final Report No.38/2012 in First Information Report No.26/2012 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar for the offence under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. is accepted and protest Petition filed by the petitioner had been rejected. The Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct the learned Chief Judicial Ministered, Sikar to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 417 I.P.C. against the accused non-petitioner [2026:RJ-JP:23616] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6462/2016] No.2 as per the provisions of Code of Criminal procedure. Any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner." Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had lodged FIR No.26/2012 at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar. The Investigating Officer submitted a Final Report in negative form, holding that the dispute was purely of a civil nature. Aggrieved thereby, the complainant-petitioner filed a protest petition, which came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.07.2013. It is further submitted that, against the said order dated 30.07.2013, the petitioner preferred a revision petition, which was also dismissed by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated 02.11.2016. He further contends that no partition of the disputed land had taken place between the parties, and even prior thereto, the property had been transferred. It is argued that the orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court are contrary to law, and the material available on record disclose sufficient grounds for taking cognizance against the respondents. It is, therefore, prayed that the present miscellaneous petition be allowed and the impugned orders be set aside. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that a civil suit between the parties is already pending. It is further contended that the complaint was instituted after a delay of about five years and the allegations regarding forgery of documents were not substantiated. In these circumstances, it is submitted that the orders passed by the learned Trial Court and the learned [2026:RJ-JP:23616] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6462/2016] Revisional Court are legal and justified. It is also submitted that the record pertaining to the present petition has already been destroyed in accordance with the applicable Rules. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Revisional Court. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced and a careful examination of the impugned orders, this Court finds that both the ld. Courts below have duly appreciated the material available on record and have passed well-reasoned and legally sustainable orders. No illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or material irregularity is discernible so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Accordingly, the present criminal miscellaneous petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J SAURABH /05