CRLMP / 7453 / 2025 (MAHAVEER VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of orders directing police & FSL to investigate the matter in a particular manner. HELD- though Court may direct further investigation u/Sec.173(8) CrPC, it cannot control manner of investigation or prescribe mode of collecting evidence, such power lies in exclusive domain of Investigating Agency, Court may monitor but not supervise. Such directions are unwarranted hence set aside to that extent. Petition partly allowed and pending applications disposed of.
2
CRLMP / 7662 / 2025 (DEEPAK ARORA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of FIR and consequential proceedings for offences under BNS and SC/ST Act arising out of alleged incident in Director’s office. HELD- even if FIR is taken at face value, incident within “four corners of the office” is not in “public views” mere presence of few employees is not public. Sec 3 (1) (r) & (s) not made out. Use of word “neech” is not caste-based and “mens rea” to humiliate is missing; continuation amounts to abuse of process of Court. FIR quashed.
3
CRLR / 103 / 2026 (SUMITRA VS ASHISH) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/02/2026 Accused sought quashing of appellate judgment setting aside conviction & remanding matter for fresh trial. HELD- appeal u/ proviso of Sec 372 CrPC not maintainable as it lies only against acquittal, lesser conviction or inadequate compensation grant of probation is part of sentencing. Appellate court committed fundamental jurisdictional error & made unwarranted assumption. Remand giving prosecution “2nd opportunity” is impermissible. Revision allowed, trial court’s judgment restored.
4
CRLR / 904 / 2025 (RAMURAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/02/2026 Petitioner sought restoration of the S.D.M.’s order directing attachment of the disputed land and appointment of a receiver, which had been set aside in revision. HELD- proceedings u/Sec.145 & 146 CrPC require material showing real and immediate threat of breach of peace, mere apprehension is insufficient. SDM acted without such material, Hon’ble court found that the entire proceedings are vitiated Impugned orders quashed and set aside, revision allowed and pending applications disposed of.
5
CW / 685 / 2005 (SUNIL KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 02/02/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of punishment, appellate and revisional orders arising from departmental proceedings. HELD- Rule 28(b) of the CRPF Rules, 1955 bars appeal against punishment of censure; right of appeal is purely statutory and must be expressly provided. Entertaining such appeal was without jurisdiction; appellate and revisional proceedings stand vitiated, impugned orders quashed, original censure order survives, petition allowed and pending applications disposed of.
1
CRLMB / 3107 / 2026 (NAVEEN TEMANI S/O BRIJKISHORE TEMANI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/04/2026 Peti. sought anticipatory bail u/Sec.482 BNSS on ground of compromise and alleged commercial transaction. HELD- material discloses organized cyber fraud involving digital arrest of an elderly victim and transfer of huge amount through mule accounts and hawala channels. Prima facie role of applicant evident. Considering gravity, transnational nature and need for custodial interrogation, compromise held irrelevant; bail rejected. Trial court directed to consider release of seized amount.
2
CW / 5426 / 2022 (SMT. BHAURI DEVI D/O BADRI WIFE OF LATE BHAURILAL VS MAHENDRA KUMAR SON OF SARVAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2026 Petitioner sought quashing of order rejecting application u/O.26 R.10-A CPC & prayed for DNA test to establish that she is daughter of deceased. HELD- dispute relates to maternity is “rarest of rare” situation. Where parentage is seriously disputed & no direct evidence exists, DNA test becomes necessary to reach truth. Though privacy is involved, it must be in balance with justice. Refusal permits adverse inference. Impugned order quashed, DNA test directed. Petition allowed.
3
CW / 5320 / 2020 (SMT CHAYA SETHI W/O LATE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR SETHI VS JITENDRA BOHRA S/O LATE SHRI BALKISHAN BOHRA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/02/2026 Petition sought quashing of orders contending that eviction decree is inexecutable against them as they were not impleaded and claim tenancy rights. HELD- upon death of original tenant, heirs succeed as joint tenants, not as co-tenants. Tenancy remains single & indivisible. Decree against one joint tenant binds all. Non-impleadment of every heir is immaterial. No perversity or jurisdictional error shown. Writ petition dismissed, pending applications disposed of.
4
CMA / 2560 / 2024 (LAXMAN KUMAWAT S/O RATANLAL VS MADAN SINGH S/O NARAYAN SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/02/2026 Petitioner sought enhancement of compensation by treating his work as skilled labour and by computing income for 30 days instead of 26 days. HELD- ‘Beldar’ is unskilled labour as per labour notifications; however, 26-day rule is unrealistic as daily wagers are paid only for days actually worked and do not get paid weekly offs; hence income must be computed for 30 days. Compensation recalculated; award enhanced; appeal partly allowed with interest.
5
CUSTA / 7 / 2024 (THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEAL) VS CERAMIC TABLEWARE PVT. LTD.) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/02/2026 Petitioner sought setting aside of CESTAT order allowing amendment of Bill of Entry u/Sec.149 of the Customs Act. HELD- Sec.149 allows amendment if based on documentary evidence existing at time of clearance, there is no restriction that error must be disclosed suo motu. Even if detected during search, amendment is permissible. Provision aims at proper assessment and discretion must be exercised reasonably, CESTAT order upheld. Appeal dismissed and pending applications disposed of.
