Dismissed¶30

Regional Convener Capart v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 Sept 2025CRLMP/1888/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1888/2012, decided 15/09/2025 by Justice Ashutosh Kumar. Complainant challenged acceptance of negative final report in FIR No.603/2004 (Sections 409, 420 IPC, P.S. Gangapur City) and dismissal of a five-year-delayed criminal revision. Keywords: Section 482 Cr.P.C., negative final report, protest petition, delay in filing revision, quashing of orders, inherent powers, dismissal. No precedent cases discussed; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the FIR, the negative final report and the orders of the Courts below, this Court finds no illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the Courts below; consequently the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. ¶29

Regional Convener Capart Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:37370]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1888/2012

¶4

Regional Representative and Member Convener, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Dehli Tambi Tower, 3rd Floor Sansar Chandra Road, and Flat No.720/12-92/ORP/Capart, Jaipur-I through its Chiranjee Lal Katariya, Regional Representative and Member Convener at Capart.

¶5

----Petitioner/Complainant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

Gandhi Navyuvak Mandal Bamanbaroda, through President Mahesh Tiwari S/o Devilal, R/o Bamanbaroda, Tehsil Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).

¶9

---- Non-petitioner/Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. Hari Krishana Sharma, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl.G.A. Mr. Devi Singh, Dy.G.A. Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. with Mr. Heramb Saraswat, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶12

Order

¶13

15/09/2025

¶14

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 21.02.2012 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Revisional Court') in Criminal Revision Petition No.93/2011, whereby learned Revisional Court while dismissing the revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner, upheld the order dated 23.10.2006 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gangapur City (hereinafter referred to as learned 'trial

[2025:RJ-JP:37370]

[CRLMP-1888/2012]

(2 of 3)

Court'). Vide impugned order dated 23.10.2006, in pursuance of the investigation in FIR No.603/2004 registered at Police Station Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, a negative final report submitted before learned trial Court and the same was accepted by learned trial Court.

¶19

In the present case, the impugned FIR was lodged by the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC. In pursuance of the investigation, the said negative final report was submitted before learned trial Court on 30.10.2004. Notices were issued to the petitioner on 16.12.2004 and counsel for the petitioner sought time for filing of the protest petition. However, the matter was remained pending for filing of the protest petition till 23.10.2006 and on that day, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner to argue the matter, therefore, the said negative final report was accepted by learned trial Court on 23.10.2006.

¶20

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.10.2006 passed by learned trial Court, the petitioner filed Revision Petition No.93/2011 with a delay of almost five years.

¶21

Vide impugned order dated 21.02.2012, learned Revisional Court dismissed the revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioner and upheld the impugned order dated 23.10.2006, only on the ground of delay in filing the petition as no cogent reason was assigned on behalf of the petitioner with regard to delay in filing the revision.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the present petition be allowed and the impugned orders dated 21.02.2012

[2025:RJ-JP:37370]

[CRLMP-1888/2012]

(3 of 3)

and 23.10.2006 passed by learned Courts below be quashed and set aside.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 oppose the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

¶28

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶29

After perusing the impugned FIR; the negative final report submitted before learned trial Court and the impugned orders dated 21.02.2012 and 23.10.2006 passed by learned Courts below, this Court does not find any illegality or impropriety in the orders passed by the Courts below.

¶30

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the present petition stands dismissed.

¶31

Stay application and any other pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶32

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶33

AARZOO ARORA /28

Regional Convener Capart v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Regional Convener Capart v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Sohanlal S/O Toduram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sandeep Banerjee S/O Late Shri S.P. Banerjee Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopi Ram S/O Gangaram B/C Raigar Vs State of Rajasthan

Harlal Meena S/O Chotelal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Beena and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.