[2026:RJ-JP:10070] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7782/2025 Kishan Kishor Khandelwal S/o Motilal, Resident of 3-F-15, Talvandi Kota, Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Kota (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. 2. Ramesh Chand Soni, Branch Manager, Baroda, Rajasthan Regional Gramin Bank Bhandaheda, Police Station Devli Manjhi, District Kota (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sangeeta Kumari Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP with Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 09/03/2026 1. The instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS assailing the order dated 01.03.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Kanwas, District Kota in case No.468/2018 arising out of FIR No.28/2017 registered at Police Station Deoli Manjhi, District Kota Rural whereby the charge has been framed against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 409 of IPC and also the order dated 03.10.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramganjmandi, District Kota in Criminal Revision Petition No.8/2019 whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against the charge order dated 01.03.2019 was dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:10070] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7782/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court failed to consider the material available on record and in a cursory manner, order of framing of charge has been passed. Counsel submits that alleged embezzled amount had already been deposited by the petitioner prior to lodging the FIR. Counsel submits that thus, from the charge-sheet, no case is made out against the petitioner. But the learned Court below did not appreciate the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Hence, the impugned orders being illegal and perverse deserve to be quashed. 3. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She submits that from perusal of the charge-sheet, it appears that initially, amount deposited by the customers, was deposited in the Bank but later on, same was transferred by the petitioner in the bank account of his relatives and only when objection was raised by the Auditor, said amount was deposited by the petitioner, which shows his ill-intention. 4. I have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the record would reveal that both the Courts below have considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner during the arguments on the issue of charge and thereafter, upon finding prima facie case against the petitioner, framed charges against him for offence under Section 409 of IPC. It is also evident that concurrent finding have been recorded by the both the Courts. 6. It is well settled law that at the stage of framing charges, the court is required to determine whether there exists sufficient [2026:RJ-JP:10070] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7782/2025] ground to presume that the accused has committed an offence. The Court does not conduct a detailed examination of the reliability, admissibility, or sufficiency of the evidence as would be done during trial. The court merely examines the police report, documents, and material on record to see whether they disclose a prima facie case against the accused. If the material raises grave suspicion about the involvement of the accused, the court is justified in framing charges and proceeding to trial. A prima facie case means that the material placed before the court raises a reasonable suspicion that the accused might have committed the offence. It is not necessary that the evidence should be sufficient for conviction. 7. Apart from above, it is worth mentioning that in the garb of present petition under Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has filed second revision petition which is not maintainable. In the case of Deepti @ Arati Rai vs Akhil Rai & Ors. vs. Akhil Rai & Ors. reported in [1995] 0 SCC (Cri) 1020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "4. .................The High Court also should have taken care to verify the record before accepting the concession made by the learned Government Advocate. It should have also applied its mind to the aspect that second revision application, after dismissal of the first one by Sessions Court is not maintainable and that inherent power under Section 482 of the Code can not be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. As we find that the order passed by the High Court is not legal and just it will have to be set aside. We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the impugned [2026:RJ-JP:10070] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7782/2025] judgment and order passed by the High Court and direct the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Bilaspur to proceed further with Criminal Case No. 69 of 1993." 8. In the case of Wajid Mirza vs. Mohammed Ali Ahmed, : 1982 CriLJ 590, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed as under:- "23. This Court in Re Puritipati Jagga Reddy, (1979) 1 AJLJ 1 : AIR 1979 Andra Pra 146 at p. 149 (FB) held :- The language of sub-section (3) of Section 397 contains no ambiguity. If any person had already chosen to file a revision before the High Court or to the Sessions Court under subsection (1), the same person cannot prefer a further application to the other Court. To put it in other words, sub- sec.(1) and (3) make it clear that a person aggrieved by any order or proceeding can seek remedy by way of revision either before the High Court or the Sessions Court. Once, he has availed himself of the remedy, he is precluded from approaching the other forum. It is equally manifest from the provisions of sub-section (3) that this bar is limited to the same person who has already chosen to go either to the High Court or to the Sessions court seeking a remedy and that it does not apply to the other parties or persons.‟ 9. In view of above, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders of the courts below, warranting interference, while exercising inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS. [2026:RJ-JP:10070] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7782/2025] 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. petition is dismissed. 11. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /40