MREF / 3 / 2021 (STATE VS SURENDRA KUMAR @ MANDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2022 Reference before this Court to confirm death sentence, to dismiss appeal. Court re-appreciated evidence led by prosecution for charges, discussed links of circumstantial evidence learned Trial Court found proved against accused. Court viewed that prosecution failed to lead proper evidence to prove circumstance of extra-judicial confession, failed to prove case by leading unimpeachable, acceptable circumstantial evidence. Impugned judgement quashed. Reference answered negative. Appeal allowed.
2
CW / 3649 / 2021 (PRAVEEN KUMAR PARMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2022 PIL against transfer of members of Mewar Bhil Corps to other districts as violating Rajasthan Scheduled Area Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service Rules, 2014.This court opined that S.34 of Rajasthan Police Act,2007 empowers state to deploy a police officer in any part of State. Members of MBC too form part of police force of State. Act stand on higher pedestal than Rules. In conflict rules will have to yield to provisions of Act.Deployment is different from transfer,deputation.Dismissed
3
CRLMB / 4909 / 2022 (SIMORNA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 11/05/2022 Second bail application under S.439 Cr.P.C for offence punishable under S.302/120-B & 201 of the IPC and S. 4/25 of the Arms Act. Court opined that accused lady jailed since 2015 with minor daughter of 3 years, trial yet pending. Bail allowed on execution of a personal bond Rs.2, 00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/. Merits not gone into.
4
CRLMP / 6586 / 2021 (ANOP SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/04/2022 Petition challenging case pending before Judicial Magistrate registered under section 11 and 15 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006. Court opined that marriage is a sine qua non to constitute an offence under Act. Engagement of a child in any case does not amount to an offence under section 11 of the Act. Exercised inherent power u/s 482 regarding proceedings fundamentally void, abuse of process of Court, allowed petition.
5
CW / 3472 / 2022 (HAIDER KHAN VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/04/2022 Petition branded as PIL to direct Central Government to conduct census activities in specified time and declare Section 3 of Census Act, 1948 as ultra vires. Court opined petition as malafide, fanciful and unrealistic, prejudice to the public at large by noncompletion of the census operations not established, census activities are to be undertaken in accordance of Act, is a sovereign function of the CG, questioning bonafides of the executing authorities unreasonable. Petition dismissed.
1
CW / 11980 / 2021 (RAJENDRA KUMAR S/O LT. SHRI MANAK CHAND VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/05/2022 Court opined that recovery by respondent de-hors provisions of S.245 of IT Act, if appeal filed then no requirement of predeposit, will not be assessee in default as u/s 220(6). Adjustment from due refund can be done after serving intimation and hearing as u/s 245 of IT Act. Action of recovery by respondents de-hors statutory provisions u/s 220(6), 245 of IT Act and lacked jurisdiction as u/s 222, 223 of IT Act. Court directed to refund in excess of 20% with interest. Appeal allowed.
2
CW / 13488 / 2019 (EPTISA SERVICIOS DE INGENIERIA SL VS AJMER SMART CITY LIMITED) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/05/2022 Petition filed against order dismissing application filed u/s 34(4) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 by Commercial Court. This Court finds that award cannot be remitted to Arbitrator in guise of additional reasons and fill up gaps in reasoning, if there are no findings in contentious issues in award or if any findings are recorded ignoring material evidence on record, the same are acceptable grounds for setting aside award itself. Dismissed.
3
SAW / 41 / 2021 (JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS GHASIRAM S/O CHUNA) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/05/2022 Court declining interference in Single Judges order stating that when a particular set of persons are given a benefit, all other similarly situated persons are to be treated alike. Respondents, like Chhotu Ram opted for 15% developed land within stipulated time, so, JDA cannot differentiate in allotment of similar set of land to respondents, Chhotu Ram litigated on behalf of everyone and the order attained finality, so like Chhotu Ram, respondents entitled too. Special Appeal dismissed.
4
CMA / 192 / 2006 (GEEGRAJ VS NAGARMAL AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/05/2022 Misc. appeal filed u/O41 R23A of CPC against judgement passed by ADJ,Kehtri,Jhunjhunu in civil appeal condoning delay of 10years and 8months quashing decree passed by Civil Judge,Khetri,directing defendants not to dispossess plaintiffs from land in question without following due process of law, alternatively to regularize the possession of plaintiffs. This court opined it was erroneous to condone delay without giving notice to plaintiff, so remanded matter back to decide afresh. Appeal disposed.
5
CRLMP / 1635 / 2022 (PRADEEP KUMAR SON OF SHRI DHARAM CHAND, VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/05/2022 Petition to quash FIR registered u/s 420,467,468,471, 120B IPC. Court opined that real dispute is of civil nature,cannot be adjudicated by criminal court, invoking criminal court’s jurisdiction is abuse of process of Court. No ingredient of offence alleged u/s 420 IPC, No averment as to forgery u/s 464 IPC or use documents as genuine document, offence u/s 468, 469, 471,120-B IPC not made out. Material available disclosed ingredients of none of offences,so, FIR not sustainable. Petition Allowed.
