CRLA / 274 / 1993 (STATE VS CHANDRA AVTAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/12/2025 The State and the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondents for offences of cheating and forgery. HELD- that enhancement can be ordered only when the sentence is manifestly inadequate, perverse or illegal. Finding that the Trial Court exercised discretion within statutory limits and no perversity or illegality was shown, interference was declined. The conviction and sentence were affirmed, and the criminal appeal and revision petition were dismissed.
2
CRLA / 494 / 1994 (BRIJ MOHAN @ RAJA VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/12/2025 The appellant sought reversal of the conviction under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 323 IPC. HELD- that the incident occurred inside a closed showroom and not in public view, an essential ingredient of Section 3(1)(x). The dispute was commercial, the demand draft was not proved, and no medical evidence supported the assault. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, the appellant acquitted, and appeal allowed.
3
CRLA / 680 / 1998 (HIMMAT SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/12/2025 The appellant sought setting aside of conviction under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. HELD- that gas regulators are not declared essential commodities and no control order was produced. The seized articles were not proved to be regulators nor examined, and recovery suffered from defects without independent support. On parity with the acquitted co-accused, the prosecution failed. The conviction was set aside, the appellant acquitted, bail bonds discharged, fine refunded.
4
CW / 981 / 2019 (SHANKAR RAM VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/12/2025 The petitioner challenged disciplinary proceedings culminating in dismissal. HELD- that after a regular departmental enquiry, findings must rest on evidence adduced therein and not on a preliminary enquiry. Ignoring hostile witnesses and the criminal Final Report showed non-application of mind. The Suo motu review was arbitrary. The dismissal and appellate orders were quashed, reinstatement with continuity of service directed, the matter remanded, and the petition disposed.
5
CW / 12663 / 2016 (SMT ANAND KANWAR VS STATE AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/12/2025 The petitioner sought release of family pension on the basis of nomination and PPO, claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. HELD- that nomination does not confer succession or marital rights and that entitlement to family pension depends upon establishing a valid marriage. Disputed questions regarding marital status and succession cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. The parties were relegated to civil court for declaration of rights. Petition dismissed.
1
CRLMP / 6524 / 2025 (M/S CADILA PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN,) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/11/2025 Pet. seeks quashing of order passed by the CJM, Jhunjhunu taking cognizance against all the pet. u/s 18(a)(i), 18(a)(iv) & 27(d) rw S. 16(1)(a) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. HELD: The matter is remitted to the ld Magistrate to pass a reasoned & speaking order afresh, after due application of judicial mind ensuring that the ingredients of the offences for which cognizance is required to be taken are present. At least a formal application of mind must be there.
2
CRLMP / 5888 / 2025 (NURUL ISLAM SON OF SHRI ABDUL JABBARAR VS RAJASTHAN GOVT.) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/11/2025 Pet. seek bail in FIR regd. u/s 419, 420, 471 & 120-B IPC. HELD: Pet. who have been declared as approver and their statements have not been recorded, have not been granted the benefit of bail, as per the rider, contained u/s 306(4) Cr.P.C. Prolonged detention without trial can be a violation of Art. 21. Hence, looking to entire facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is necessary to issue directions to the Trial Court to speed up the pending proceedings. Petition disposed.
3
CRLMP / 4021 / 2024 (SUNDAR SINGH SON OF SHRI NAND RAM, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/11/2025 Pet. assailing the directions issued by ADJ No.1, Deeg, Distt. Bharatpur for conducting enquiry regarding an agreement alleged to have been executed b/w the parties in 2000. HELD: If any litigant approaches the Court with fabricated docs, a thorough enquiry is required in order to ascertain the truth. This is because filing of false documents is a serious matter that can be considered a fraud played on the Court, potentially leading to legal consequences for the litigants. Petition dismissed.
4
CW / 602 / 2009 (IQBAL HUSSAIN VS JUDGE LABOUR COURT ANDANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/11/2025 Petitioner assailing the award passed by ld. Labour Court, Kota, rejecting the statement of claim on the ground that the pet. has not worked for required 240 days in the 12 months. HELD: The observation of the ld. Labour Court that the pet. has not completed 240 days is illegal and arbitrary and the same deserves to be quashed. Pet. would be entitled 50% back wages upto the date of passing of this order. However, he would be entitled for full wages from the date of order. Petition disposed.
5
CRLMP / 3510 / 2021 (RAMESH KUMAR S/O MOHAN LAL VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/11/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of criminal proceedings for offence u/s Section 354 IPC. HELD: The complaint mechanism u/s 27 POSH Act, is not the sole legal recourse available to an aggrieved woman. Further, ICC’s report gave clean chit to the petitioner and found the complainant’s allegations were baseless and motivated by malice However, the investigating officer failed to incorporate vital report which gives indication of an incomplete and biased investigation. Petitions allowed.
6
CRLMP / 3885 / 2024 (POORANMAL YADAV S/O SHRI SITARAM, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/11/2025 Petitioner challenged order passed by the ASJ, Chomu, Distt. Jaipur, rejecting the application submitted by the pet. u/s 311 Cr.P.C. HELD: In this case the petitioner has been deprived of such fair opportunity. The Court below has ignored the important provisions of law relating to summoning and examining of the witnesses, contained u/s 311 Cr.P.C. & S. 138 of the Evidence Act. Exercise of such wild power should be made judicially and also with extreme care and caution. Petition allowed.
