| 1 |
CRLMP / 6739 / 2024 (PRITI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/10/2024
Petitioner-victim seeks quashing FIR lodged through her father against her live in partner/accused u/s 354(a), 376D, 376(2)(n), 450 & 34 IPC & S. 5L/6 POCSO as well as some provisions of SCST Act. HELD: Prosecutrix is major as per her Aadhar card. She being an adult is knowledgeable about her rights & responsibilities. Hence, Relationship between Petitioner and accused identified as consensual. Petition allowed. |
| 2 |
CRLAS / 286 / 2024 (PREMCHAND VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/10/2024
Appellants aggrieved by Conviction order passed u/s 8/22 & 8/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 against appellant 1&2 respectively. HELD: Absence of independent witnesses, collection of samples without ensuring presence of magistrate, non-compliance of Sec. 52A NDPS & delay in sending samples to Forensic Science Laboratory renders the authenticity of sample doubtful. Appellants set free with execution of bond to appear further. Appeal allowed. |
| 3 |
CRLMP / 7095 / 2024 (DINESH @ DINIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/10/2024
Petitioner seeks quashing of order 09.01.2024 passed by Learned Spcl. Judge, SC/ST(POA) Act Barmer. HELD: Direction of Trial Court for Forefeiture of Bail Bonds & initiation of proceedings against surety u/s 446 Cr.P.C. to be set aside as no notice was served before cancellation of Bail Bonds denying him the opportunity for explaining reasons of non-cancellation. Hence, violation of personal liberty. Petition disposed & trial to proceed in accordance with legal provisions. |
| 4 |
CW / 10947 / 2024 (NITISHA CHOUDHARY VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/10/2024
Petitioner aggrieved of ongoing selection process for Ayurveda Compounder/Nurse Junior grade. HELD: Adding on half of the vacancy after almost 8 months of commencement of process by splitting the vacancy is beyond the purview of Rule 16 and is illegal and unreasonable as the candidates who became eligible subsequently will be deprived from participating in the recruitment process. Petition allowed. |
| 5 |
CRLW / 1131 / 2024 (DHAGALI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 20/09/2024
Petitioner assails appellate order passed by Sessions Judge Jodhpur whereby accused acquitted u/s 447 & 427 but sentenced u/s 323/34 IPC & desires additional charges u/s 354IPC. HELD: Eye witness Rama Ram considered to be interested witness as his daily wages are paid by the complainant, hence his testimony not considered. Additional charges could have been requested at the Trial or appellate stage via application but not relevant as of now. Petition dismissed. |
| 6 |
CRLMP / 2420 / 2024 (SUCHI SARDANA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/09/2024
Petitioner aggrieved by order dated 24.01.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions judge Bikaner in which revisional court allowed the revision petition & remanded matter back to trial court for a fresh hearing. HELD: Reasoning of revision court is that, no allegations of forgery proved if the document in question is not alleged to be created by an individual, which is sound and sufficient. Petition dismissed. |
| 7 |
CRLMP / 6040 / 2024 (NIRMALA PUROHIT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/09/2024
Petitioner seeks quashing FIR at Police Station Mathania, Jodhpur u/s 61(2)(a), 62, 318(4), 338, 336(3), 336(4), 340(2), 341(2), 339, 342(1), 342(2) & 351(3) of BNS 2023 for misrepresentation in Aadhar as an Indian National. HELD: No misrepresentation or impersonation as alleged against Petitioner proved u/s 318(4) & 336(3) of BNS. Malafide intention of complainant identified giving a criminal angle to a civil dispute which is an abuse of process of law. Petition allowed. |
| 8 |
CRLMP / 7708 / 2023 (HIMANI VISHNOI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/09/2024
Petitioner seeks quashing of charge sheet filed u/s 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC. HELD: No criminal intent proved & failure of bank to conduct proper due-diligence, verify authenticity of the mortgaged property documents before sanctioning loan. Unreasonable delay of 3 years in lodging FIR and furthermore grant of ‘No Dues Certificate’ proves no alleged offences against the Petitioner. Petition allowed. |
