Disposed

Swami Ramanand Udaseen Sishya Shri Sukardev Muni Ji, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 Oct 2025CRLMP/6858/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant sought remedy after acquittal of accused respondents in a cheque-dishonour complaint dismissed for his non-appearance; appeal was rejected as not maintainable. The court held leave to appeal under Section 419 BNSS is maintainable and converted the petition into one.

What did the court decide?

Petition converted into criminal leave to appeal under Section 419 BNSS; amended cause-title permitted within one week.

Swami Ramanand Udaseen Sishya Shri Sukardev Muni Ji, Vs… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6858/2025

¶3

Swami Ramanand Udaseen Sishya Shri Sukardev Muni Ji, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Dudu Road, Malpura, District-Tonk (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶7

Bhagwati Prasad Gattani S/o Shri Nathmal Gattani, Aged About 46 Years, R/o V And Post-Vaisroli, Police Station - Gachipura, District Nagour.

¶8

Sh. Gauri Shankar Gattani S/o Shri Nathmal Gattani, Aged About 45 Years, R/o V And Post Vaisroli, Police Station - Gachipura, District - Nagour.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Jai Kumar Yadav
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Amit Gupta,PP

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

29/10/2025

¶14

The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 19.09.2019 passed by Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pushkar, District Ajmer in Criminal Complaint Case No.86/2007 by which the accused respondents were acquitted from the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act of 2015”).

¶15

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainantpetitioner submits that a complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 was submitted against the accused-respondents and the

¶16

[CRLMP-6858/2025]

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

same was dismissed on account of non-appearance of the petitioner before the trial court on the fateful day, i.e., 19.09.2019. Learned counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, a criminal appeal was preferred before the court of Special Judge, SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Cases, Ajmer, however, the same was rejected as not maintainable, hence, this criminal misc. petition has been preferred.

¶19

In the considered opinion of this Court, whenever any judgment of acquittal is passed in a criminal complaint submitted by the complainant, the criminal leave to appeal under Section 419 BNSS is maintainable.

¶20

At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner made an oral request for converting this criminal misc. petition as criminal leave to appeal under Section 419 BNSS.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid prayer, the instant criminal misc. petition is treated as criminal leave to appeal under Section 419 BNSS. Let amended cause-title be filed within a period of one week from today. The same be taken on record and be placed at appropriate place of the file.

¶22

For statistical purpose, this criminal misc. petition stands disposed of.

¶23

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶24

Karan/64

Swami Ramanand Udaseen Sishya Shri Sukardev Muni Ji, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swami Ramanand Udaseen Sishya Shri Sukardev Muni Ji, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amratlal S/O Shri Buddhram Vs State of Rajasthan

Gulabchand S/O Omprakash, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhuramal Ujjaniya S/O Late Sh. Benaram Ujjaniya Vs State of Rajasthan

Raja Ram Agarwal S/O Shri Girdhari Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Yogi S/O Shri Ram Nath Yogi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shubham Sharma S/O Shri Arun Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan