CRLR / 1521 / 2024 (RAJPAL SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/03/2026 Petitioner challenged proceedings under Sections 145 and 146 CrPC concerning disputed property despite pending civil proceedings. HELD- Where civil proceedings concerning title and possession are pending, parallel proceedings u/Sec145 & 146 are neither appropriate nor legally justified. Cogent and reliable material showing imminent danger of breach of peace is required; vague or bald assertions are insufficient. The revision was dismissed and the SDM’s order quashed and set aside.
2
CRLW / 1081 / 2026 (SHWETAMBARI VIKRAM BHATT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2026 Petitioners challenged the freezing of their entire bank accounts pursuant to police directions. HELD- Freezing is an extraordinary measure to be exercised sparingly and with due circumspection. It must have a “live, proximate and direct nexus” with the alleged criminal activity. Freezing beyond the disputed amount, without cogent and justifiable reasons, is disproportionate. Accounts were defreezed subject to ₹30 crores remaining frozen; pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
3
CRLMA / 181 / 2026 (SANTOSH DANGI VS FILM M/S ROYAL SANITARY) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2026 Petitioner sought waiver of costs imposed for compounding a Section 138 prosecution after settlement, citing financial incapacity and continued incarceration. HELD- Costs are regulatory in nature and their application admits of flexibility. Where the complainant has no subsisting grievance, incarceration cannot be sustained without wilful default. Costs cannot result in deprivation of personal liberty on account of financial incapacity. Costs were waived and the arrest warrant set aside.
4
CRLMA / 147 / 2024 (SUPRIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/03/2026 Petitioner sought recall of the order whereby the entire FIR was quashed despite compromise being confined to two accused. HELD- Recall does not involve re-evaluation of merits, but is a limited corrective authority inherent in every Court of record to rectify an accidental or clerical mistake and restore the order to its true judicial intent. The FIR was quashed only qua the compromised parties; proceedings against the remaining accused continue unaffected. Application stands allowed.
5
CRLCP / 3 / 2019 (IN RE VS DILIP KUMAR SAINI) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/03/2026 Whether grievances against the personal conduct of a judicial officer, expressed during an official inquiry, constitute criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.HELD- Such grievances do not constitute criminal contempt unless they have a real and substantial tendency to scandalise the Court, interfere with judicial proceedings or obstruct administration of justice. Criminal contempt reference: Dismissed. Rule: Discharged.
6
CW / 23307 / 2025 (FORTUNE FOUNDATION VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/02/2026 Petitioner sought inclusion in the concluded seat matrix and reopening of counseling after obtaining NOC and recognition. HELD-The right to establish an institution cannot be equated with a right to insist upon student allotment for a concluded academic session. Midstream inclusion would disrupt academic schedules. Writ Petition: Dismissed. Pending applications, if any: Disposed of. Prospectively, NOC applications shall be decided at least 45 days before the first counseling round
7
CW / 610 / 2026 (ARYAMAN NURSING COLLEGE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/02/2026 Petitioners sought inclusion in the concluded seat matrix and reopening of counseling after obtaining NOCs and recognition. HELD- The right to establish an institution cannot be equated with a right to insist upon student allotment for a concluded academic session. Midstream inclusion would disrupt academic schedules. All writ petitions: Dismissed. Pending applications, if any: Disposed of. Prospectively, NOC applications shall be decided 45 days before the first counseling round.
8
CRLR / 189 / 2026 (AMIN KHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/02/2026 Petitioners challenged the framing of charges in cross-cases arising from the same occurrence and refusal to frame Section 308 IPC in the counter-case. HELD- Charges in cross-cases need not be symmetrical; each case must stand on its own evidentiary footing, and criminal liability is individualised and fact-specific. The Magistrate-triable case was committed to the Sessions Court for trial with the cross-case. Present revision was disposed of.
1
CW / 14328 / 2020 (VISHNU DATT SAINI S/O GOVIND NARAYAN VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/03/2026 Petitioners challenged 1:3 category-wise shortlisting without including more meritorious reserved-category candidates in open merit. HELD- Final merit is not crystallized at screening; migration applies only at the final select list after all stages. Inclusion in open merit at shortlisting is merit-based, not ‘migration’. The screening result and shortlisting methodology warranted no interference. Writ petitions dismissed; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
2
CW / 82 / 2025 (EX. ME-1 YASHPAL YADAV (NAVY NO. 2217074T) VS UOI) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/03/2026 Petitioner sought parity in punishment on the basis of similar charges. HELD- Similar charges do not by themselves entitle a person to parity in punishment; facts and circumstances of each case must be examined. Even if the superior officer was at fault to some extent, it cannot confer a right upon a subordinate in the uniformed forces to cause bodily injury to the superior officer. No interference warranted; writ petition dismissed. Pending applications, if any, disposed of.
3
CMA / 1302 / 2019 (DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES VS M/S MURLIWALA AGROTECH PVT. LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2026 Appellants challenged the award, disputing the arbitration clause and interest. HELD- Though existence of an arbitration agreement can be questioned at the appellate stage; a plea not raised before the Sec11 Court, Commercial Court or in the appeal cannot be urged through oral submissions. Clause 17 provided for arbitration and the plea was misconceived. Interest was awarded after considering applicable law. Appeal dismissed; award to be implemented. Pending applications stand disposed of.
4
CW / 22069 / 2018 (MOHAN LAL VERMA S/O BADRIPRAAD VS RAJENDRA PRASAD SHAH S/O SHRI HEERA LAL JI SHAH) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2026 Peti. challenged the Appellate Rent Tribunal’s remand order, seeking adjudication of the appeal on merits. HELD- Remand should be exercised only where the Appellate Rent Tribunal is unable to effectively exercise its jurisdiction. u/the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001, subsequent events may be brought on record through affidavits; strict CPC procedure is unwarranted. Remand set aside and appeal remanded for merits. Connected petition dismissed; pending applications, if any, disposed of.
5
CW / 7932 / 2018 (LEELADHAR VS MOOLCHAND JAIN AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/03/2026 Petitioner challenged treating the plea of res judicata under Section 11 CPC as a preliminary issue. HELD- Res judicata, where determination requires examination of identity of parties, subject matter and issues and whether they were finally decided, is a mixed question of law and fact. It cannot be tried as a preliminary issue under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC and must be decided with other issues after evidence. Order set aside; pending applications, if any, disposed of.
6
CRLW / 651 / 2017 (SABRINA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/03/2026 The petitioner sought interim compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011.HELD-The State is duty bound to provide compensation to aid the victim’s rehabilitation; rehabilitation is of paramount importance. Rape victims cannot be compelled to obtain certificates from the SHO or Court. RSLSA/DLSAs must adopt a uniform policy for interim and final compensation. Order quashed; petition disposed of; pending applications disposed of.
7
CMA / 2530 / 2024 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS SHRI I.J. MAMTANI,) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/03/2026 Scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with an arbitral award alleged to be arbitrary, perverse or contrary to public policy. HELD- Interference is warranted only where perversity or arbitrariness goes to the root of the award. A plausible view cannot be substituted. The Tribunal’s findings on extension of time and termination were neither perverse nor against public policy. Appeal dismissed; pending applications disposed of.
