| 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 | CRLMP / 5928 / 2024 (CHATAR SINGH CHOUHAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of an FIR u/s 191(2), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2)/(3) and 74 of BNS, 2023. HELD: Perusal of the FIR clearly reveals that the complainant has not suffered any grievous injury. Furthermore, the nature of injury suffered by her was found to be simple and S. 115(2) of BNS has already been invoked. As far as S. 117(2) of BNS is concerned, no ingredients are made out. S. 117(2) of BNS invoked in the FIR is directed to be dropped. Petitions disposed. |
| 3 | CRLMB / 12292 / 2024 (GOVIND SUKHWAL VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/09/2024 Pet. seeks interim bail for attending last 12th day ritual of his deceased grandmother. HELD: Based on humanitarian grounds, and for the interests of justice, interim bail application of the accused-pet. is allowed for a period of 3 days from 28-09-2024 to 30-09-2024, subject to a personal bond of Rs. 5 lakh along with 2 sound sureties each worth Rs. 2.5 lakhs, and one being the relative of the convict and possessing docs. of immovable property in his name. Interim Bail granted. |
| 4 | CRLMP / 1375 / 2023 (GAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/09/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR against him u/s 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Section 65 of IT Act. HELD: Pet. not been named as accused in any of the chargesheets, and No substantive evidence against him found after investigation. U/S 193(9) of BNSS, no further investigation can take place without the permission of the trial court, where a report has already been filed against the prime accused. Petition disposed. |
| 5 | CW / 15215 / 2024 (NARENDRA KUMAR KHODANIYA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/09/2024 Pet. requests U.O. notice be quashed. HELD:The Inquiry u/s 39(1) of the Act of 2009 was done by a competent authority and regarding later notice, the maxim ‘Delegatus Non Potest Delegare’ cannot be applied to administrative actions. Asstt. Dir. asked Dy. Dir. which is not considered a delegation of power. Pet. is allowed to put his defense qua all the allegations against him before the competent authority within 15 days which shall be considered before passing final order. Pet. dismissed. |
| 6 | CRLMP / 6309 / 2024 (URVASHI BISHNOI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 18/09/2024 Petitioner as well as the respondent seeks the quashing of the FIR and proceedings under Sections 341, 323, 354, 509 & 34 of IPC. HELD:For restoring societal peace and familial harmony, the Court stated that the main objective is to strengthen family bonds and not to perpetuate discord among family members. The allegations stem a family scuffle rather than any criminal intent or grievous wrong doing. FIR & all related proceedings quashed; Petitions allowed. |
| 7 | 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. |
| 8 | CRLMP / 4286 / 2024 (PAWAN KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/09/2024 Petitioner assails the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sadulshahar regarding allowing interim maintenance to his wife and two minors. HELD: It is the moral & legal obligation of the Petitioner; being a husband as well as the father, to maintain his wife and 2 minor children as wife is unemployed. Ensuring interim maintenance fosters equity and fairness, preventing undue hardships to the Resp./Wife while the case is pending. Petition dismissed. |
| 9 | CRLMP / 2317 / 2013 (CHHINDER SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/08/2024 Pet. assailing dismissal of rev. petition upholding the trial court order taking cognizance u/s 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. HELD: There was error on the part of the trial court while taking cognizance ignoring the Negative Final Report by IO. Cognizance must be taken after judicious application of mind. No caste-based remarks were made by the pet. at a public place and for disagreeing with IO report, reasoning has to be given. Impugned orders quashed. Pet. allowed. |
| 10 | CRLMP / 5715 / 2024 (RAMANDEEP @ RAMI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/08/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by the order passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangariya, Hanumangarh, regarding rejection of his application for recording his testimony via video conferencing. HELD: The physical presence of the petitioner in the court hearing must be directed by the Trial Court, only when it is essential, by recording appropriate reasons. Otherwise, Video Conferencing may be allowed as per Video Conferencing Rules framed by the Rajasthan High Court. Petition disposed of. |
| 11 | CRLMP / 2887 / 2024 (NAINI DEVI @ NENI DEVI @ NEHA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/08/2024 Petitioners seeks quashing of FIR u/s 498-A, 406 and 323 IPC. HELD: Bald allegations lacking any specific particulars do not make out a prima facie case against the Petitioner No. 3 to 6. Allegations appear to have been made with a collateral motive stemming from matrimonial acrimony. FIR quashed qua pet. 3 to 6. Notice u/s 41A CrPC to be given to Pet. No. 1 & 2 if arrest warranted. Petition disposed. |
| 12 | CRLW / 409 / 2024 (MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA (SARASWAT) VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 23/08/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of a complaint u/s 154 of Cr.P.C. & the resultant notice to appear before ACB. HELD: Despite negative final report filed in previous FIR, the complainant did not file the protest petition. Filing multiple complaints on same set of facts before the Lokpal & ACB is insignificant and amounts to double jeopardy. Such repetitive complaints are misuse of public resources, specifically when already a favourable investigation has concluded.. Petition allowed. |
| 13 | CRLMP / 5522 / 2024 (VIJAY SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/08/2024 Pet. seeks quashing of FIR as it is a family dispute & must not involve criminal proceedings. HELD:For the offences committed before 01.07.2024 under IPC an FIR can’t be registered under BNS after enforcement of BNS from 01.07.2024.Any trial,appeal,revision or application commenced after 01.07.2024 will be proceeded as per the procedure of BNSS.No dishonest inducement/entrustment of property.No particulars of forgery of Will. Cri.Law can’t be used to settle civil disputes.Pet. allowed |
| 14 | CRLMP / 4845 / 2024 (SANGEETA SACHDEV VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/08/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of FIR for the offences u/s 420, 406 and 379 IPC. HELD: FIR is purely matrimonial in nature & registered in complete abuse of the police powers & is motivated to settle personal scores arising out of the differences between husband and wife. Wife entitled to take along personal belongings & her istridhan when leaving matrimonial home. FIR quashed. Petition allowed. |
| 15 | CRLMP / 5011 / 2024 (PARSHANT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/08/2024 Petitioner assails Interim maintenance order passed by the Family Court No. 1, Bikaner HELD: No evidence obtained establishing the fact that wife is financially independent; Hence, bears duty on the husband to ensure her financial well-being. Wife cannot be expected to live in sheer penury or be dependent on her parents / or other family members. All rights will be determined at the appropriate final stage. Petition dismissed. |
| 16 | CRLR / 868 / 2006 (TEJA RAM VS STATE AND ANR.) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/07/2024 Petitioner praying no grant of probation for offences u/s 326 & 447 IPC to resp. no. 2 considering his criminal history. HELD: Grant of probation to resp. no.2 by Appellate Court u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act is reasonably justified as per the statute. Today’s criminal justice system is focused upon balancing punishment with rehabilitation along with identifying the root causes of the criminal behavior of such offenders. Petition dismissed. |
| 1 | CW / 10544 / 2007 (SMT RAGINI SHARMA VS STATE OF RAJ AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 17/10/2024 Petitioner aggrieved by order 12.01.2007 & 13.11.2007 revoking the sanction of mining lease & dismissing revision as time barred. HELD: Limitation to file revision shall commence from the date of commutation of the order. Medical record submitted by the Pet. for proving reasonable cause for delay of 1 week in filing of revision. Application for condonation of delay of short period. is allowed by adopting liberal approach. Hence, Petition allowed. |
| 2 | CRLR / 240 / 2004 (RANG NATH GAGGAR VS STATE AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/10/2024 Petitioner-Complainant assails judgment dated 16.12.2003 passed by Additional sessions Judge (F.T.) No. 3, Ajmer against acquittal of accused-Resp. u/s 498A & 304B IPC. HELD: Dying Declaration of the deceased recorded out of her free will & affirmed by the medical officer as per Rule 6.22 Raj. Police Rules, the contents of which does not state allegations of dowry / harassment by the Respondents. FIR was delayed. No arbitrariness / illegality in the judgment. Petition dismissed. |
| 3 | CW / 5717 / 2000 (RAM CHANDER AND ORS VS BOR AJMER AND ORS) Date of Order/Judgment: 09/10/2024 Petitioner seeks quashing of judgment of Board of Revenue accepting the reference made by the Add. Collector of dismissing the review of the pet. stating land allotted to Petitioners as ‘Gair Mumkin Talab’ HELD: It cannot be a lost sight that the copy of the allotment letter produced shall be part of the record maintained by the Revenue Authorities which was not verified. Matter remitted to the Board to be decided after examining the relevant record of the land in question. |
| 4 | CW / 13827 / 2024 (MEGHAL AGARWAL D/O GYAN CHAND JAIN VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/10/2024 Pet. seeks allowing correction in name & participate in NEET(UG) Counselling 2024 HELD: Aadhar Card, A Senior Sec. Board marksheet corroborate the contention of the pet. related to her surname. As per Section 74(1),75,78&80 of BSA 2023 Court shall presume the genuineness of every public doc.Due to inadvertent & Bonafide mistake rights of the pet. cannot be jeopardized, hence, Resp. directed to consider Pet. candidature on merit & correct name after application.Petition allowed |
| 5 | CUSTA / 4 / 2024 (RAJESH KUMAR VERMA S/O SH. RAKESH VERMA VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PREVENTIVE),) Date of Order/Judgment: 01/10/2024 Appellant seeks condonation of delay on filing custom appeal against u/s 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the order of CESTAT dated 08.02.2021. HELD: The appeal was not heard on merits and was dismissed for non-compliance of S.129E of the Act. Considering that now the deposit has been made though late, the appeal is accepted subject to cost of Rs.5000/-.The matter is remitted to the CESTAT to decide appeal in accordance with law, on being satisfied that S.129E has been complied with. |
| 6 | CW / 2646 / 2017 (RETIRED CHIEF ENGINEER WELFARE SOCIETY A VS STATE OF RAJ AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/09/2024 Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents to revise pension policies. HELD: Manner of revision of pay & pension is in the executive domain of State Authorities. It is not within the scope of judicial review to direct amendment in the policy of revision. Grievances against the revision of pension vide memorandum dt. 06.06.2018 may be raised before the Competent Authority. Petition dismissed. |
| 7 | ITA / 39 / 2023 (PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1, JAIPUR VS SHRI SURENDRA MEENA) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/09/2024 Appellant aggrieved of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. HELD: The contention of the appellant that the Circular give retrospective effect only to the monetary limit lacks merit. The reliance on the exceptions carved out in Circular 3 of 2018 cannot be sustained. Circular 3 of 2018 was superseded by Circular 5 & the exceptions of Circular 5 with the enhanced monetary limits in Circular 9 of 2024 were made applicable to pending appeals. Appeals dismissed. |
| 8 | CW / 16160 / 2018 (RAM KISHORE SON OF SHRI BHORI LAL FAUJI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/09/2024 Pet. aggrieved of order passed by the Board of Revenue, Ajmer accepting the appeal of Resp. HELD: Passing ex-parte order during reference made by Tehsildar was set aside by RAA on the ground that proper opportunity to defend the case was not given which is upheld to that extent. Board of Revenue set aside the order of RAA and upheld the order of cancellation. Impugned order of Revenue Board quashed and matter remanded back to the collector for deciding the reference afresh. Pet. allowed. |
| 9 | CRLMP / 5721 / 2024 (SHRI SANJEEV KHOKHA S/O SHRI (LATE) R.K. KHOKHA VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/09/2024 Pet. u/s 528 of BNSS, challenges the order passed by the special judge (NDPS). HELD: Record reflects the Petitioner to be the owner of the offending vehicle. Petitioner did not cooperate with the investigating officer. The delay of 6 years was not supported by reasonable justifications which avails the maxim ‘vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt’ meaning only vigilant person gets the remedy. Instant petition lacks merit and is therefore dismissed. |
| 10 | CRLR / 1274 / 2003 (SANTOSH KUMAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 22/12/2023 Petitioner aggrieved from dismissal of appeal against order of conviction u/s 279 and 304A IPC. HELD: The name of the petitioner-accused was neither mentioned in the FIR, nor he was identified by the prosecution witness as bike driver at the time of accident. The deceased crossed the road suddenly which resulted in the accident; therefore, negligence by pet. not established. These material facts were ignored by both Trial Court & Appellate court. Order of Acquittal passed. |
Rajasthan High Court Principal Seat Jodhpur
e-Services Helpline: 9414056204
hc-rj[at]nic[dot]in
0291-2888500-04
Rajasthan High Court Bench Jaipur
e-Services Helpline: 7023103127
hcjaipur-rj[at]nic[dot]in
0141-2227124
