1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Cr Misc Petition No. 1450/2010 Avdhesh Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through PP 20.10.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Ram Yad Yadav - for the petitioner Mr Peeyush Kumar, PP BY THE COURT: By this misc petition challenge has been made to the charge sheet No.01A/09 dated 8.4.2009 in reference to FIR No. 171/2008 Police Station – Patan, District – Sikar. It is submitted that the vehicle in question from which contraband has been recovered does not belong to the petitioner. The vehicle was transferred to other party after complying with the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Even necessary formalities were completed which should result in transfer of the vehicle after completion of period of fourteen days from the date of information submitted by the petitioner and another period of thirty days of completion of the formalities. Since the vehicle was transferred before commission of the alleged offence, petitioner 2 cannot be said to be involved in the matter thus, prayer has been made to set aside the supplementary charge sheet filed against the petitioner. Learned PP has opposed the petition and submits that challenge to the charge sheet made on facts is not tenable. This court cannot be prayed for investigation of the facts. In fact, on filing of the charge sheet, cognizance is taken by the court. If the petitioner was so aggrieved, he could have maintained a revision petition to challenge the cognizance order. The grounds raised to challenge the charge sheet at this stage is not sustainable more specifically on the grounds urged by the petitioner. I have considered the submissions made to challenge the supplementary charge sheet on factual grounds. After investigation, supplementary charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner which is pending consideration before the court below where cognizance order has been passed in view of statements made by learned PP. In the aforesaid background, challenge to the charge sheet cannot be accepted on the factual grounds urged before me. Thus, misc petition filed cannot be entertained and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. Petitioner would however be at liberty to 3 challenge the cognizance order passed, if he so wishes. If the challenge is made, the same would be heard and decided by the court concerned without being guided by any observations made in this order. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma