Rajasthan High Court
CRLMP/4111/2026 of MANMOHAN SINGH SON OF SHRI BAJRANG SINGH SHEKHAWAT Vs RAJKUMAR SON OF SHRI JOGENDRA SINGH on 11 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4111/2026 CNR: RJHC020616892026 | URN: CRLMP / 9273U / 2026 Manmohan Singh Son Of Shri Bajrang Singh Shekhawat, Resident Of Hetamsar, Police Station Mandawa. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus Rajkumar Son Of Shri
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4111/2026
CNR: RJHC020616892026 | URN: CRLMP / 9273U / 2026
Manmohan Singh Son Of Shri Bajrang Singh Shekhawat, Resident Of Hetamsar, Police Station Mandawa.
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
Rajkumar Son Of Shri Jogendra Singh, Resident Of Hamiri, Police Station Dhanuri, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu.
----Complainant/Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. P.L. Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
11/08/2026
1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 15.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 01, Jhunjhunu, in Criminal Revision No.11/2025 (CIS No. 128/25), whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as not maintainable. The revision petition was filed against the order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases), Jhunjhunu, in Case No. 855/2018 (1376/25), N.C.V. No. 1736/2017, whereby the learned Magistrate allowed the application moved by the complainant/respondent for permitting him to put the exhibit marks on the documents produced by him.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-4111/2026]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court, after recording the statement of the complainant/respondent, fixed the matter for recording the statement of the petitioner. Counsel submits that thereafter, the complainant/respondent moved an application before the learned trial Court stating that due to a bona fide mistake, he could not put the exhibit marks on the documents produced on record and sought permission to put the exhibit marks on the documents produced by him. Counsel submits that the petitioner filed a reply denying the contents of the application, but the learned Court, without considering the same, vide order dated 28.05.2025, wrongly permitted the complainant to put the exhibit marks on the documents.
3. Counsel submits that, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner moved an application before the Revisional Court, who vide order dated 15.06.2026 dismissed the same and upheld the order passed by the learned trial Court. Counsel submits that the impugned orders have been passed without assigning any cogent reasons and are contrary to the provisions of law. Counsel submits that the evidence of the complainant has already been recorded and the application was filed only to fill up the lacuna and to delay the proceedings of the trial.
4. I have considered the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned orders passed by the courts below.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order,
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4111/2026] this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Courts, as the document sought to be exhibited are relevant for the just decision of the case and that it is settled principle of law, that a party should not ordinarily suffer on account of an omission made on part of the counsel, therefore, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds no ground warranting interference with the impugned orders passed by the learned Courts.
6. Accordingly, the present Criminal Misc. Petition is hereby dismissed.
7. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 82/MADAN