| 1 |
CRLMP / 7541 / 2024 (AMIT KUMAR DAVE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024
Petitioner seeks quashing of an order passed by the Ld. ACJM No.2, Jalore for dishonour of a cheque. HELD: Directions issued against the sureties u/s 446 CrPC has serious procedural fallacy comimitted by magistrates and cannot be sustained. Presence of an accused particularly in a matter of the kind in hand, where proceedings are semicriminal/ civil in nature, should ordinarily not be insisted upon. Original bail bonds restored. Petition disposed. |
| 2 |
CRLMP / 7493 / 2024 (CHALAKDAN CHARAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024
Petitioner aggrieved of order passed by ld. ASJ, Jodhpur dismissing the revision petition and affirming the order passed by ld. JM. HELD: Matters of personal liberty ought not to be taken so mechanically. Summoning the petitioner without effecting service of summons or bailable warrants, by directly issuing arrest warrants on a protest petition does not stand to justification in this case. Orders modified i.e. arrest warrant converted to bailable warrant. Petition disposed. |
| 3 |
CRLMP / 7618 / 2024 (VEDPRAKASH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024
Petitioner seeks quashing of an order passed by the ld. ASJ, Sri Doongargarh, Churu dismissing the revision and upheld the cognizance passed by ld. JM. HELD: Matters of personal liberty ought not to taken so mechanically. Summoning the pet. without effecting service of summons does not stand justification Directing the forfeiture of the bail-bonds of the pet. do not stand the judicial scrutiny. Original bail bonds restored. Petition disposed. |
| 4 |
CRLW / 2276 / 2024 (YUDHISHTER SINGH RAJPUROHIT VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024
Petitioner seeking interim bail for his father to enable him to attend his own marriage. HELD: Art. 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and also encompasses the right to dignity i.e. right of a father to attend marriage of his son. Such a right cannot and ought not be curtailed. Nature of prosecution evidence is documentary, which has been seized, and there is no likelihood of tempering with the same. Petition allowed. |
| 5 |
CRLW / 2177 / 2024 (AMAR SINGH RATHORE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024
Petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking his interim bail for 3 months on medical grounds of his wife. Held: Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950, also encompasses right to live with dignity as a human being which necessary entails to act as a good husband in terms of the marital wows taken during the saptapadi ceremony as per Hindu rituals. The petitioner is directed to be released on temporary bail for a period of 60 days. Petition allowed. |
| 6 |
CRLW / 2245 / 2024 (VAIBHAV LODHA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024
Petitioner seeking interim bail on medical grounds of his 64-year-old mother, requiring surgery for a total knee replacement. HELD: Petitioner’s rights are severely curtailed and his entire family is suffering. His mother urgently requires knee replacement surgery, but is forced to wait for her son to be available to take care for her during the pre & post operative period. Continuous incarceration without the commencement of a trial infringes Art. 21 of the Constitution. Petition allowed. |
| 7 |
CRLMP / 7523 / 2024 (AMIT KUMAR DAVE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/10/2024
Petitioner seeks quashing of orders passed by the Ld. ACJM No.1, Jalore for dishonour of a cheque for an amount of Rs.9,20,000. HELD: Presence of an accused in a matter of the kind in hand, where proceedings are semicriminal/ civil in nature, should ordinarily not be insisted upon, if an application is moved for a particular hearing, unless the trial court needs to either examine the under-trial or his statement is to be otherwise recorded. Impugned order is set aside. Petition disposed. |
| 8 |
CRLMP / 6744 / 2024 (REKHA GURJAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/10/2024
Prosecutrix (alleged victim) along with her live-in partner seeking quashing of an FIR for the alleged offence u/s 363 IPC. HELD: The complainant-father's claim of his daughter being minor is self-contradictory. The material annexed to the petition, including the live-in relationship agreement & Aadhaar cards, indicates that both petitioners are adults and of marriageable age. In light of this, it does not appear that the ingredients of S. 363 IPC are attracted. Petition allowed. |
| 9 |
CRLMP / 3674 / 2024 (SALIM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/09/2024
Petitioner (Husband) seeks quashing of an FIR for the offences u/s 376(2)(N), 384, 323, 342 & 354 IPC. HELD: Resp. No.2 and the pet. got married subsequent to the unsavoury incident which led to registration of the FIR in question. Parties are enjoying a bonhomie & leading a happy, tranquil and peaceful family life. It would be travesty of justice to put the accused to undergo the harassment and humiliation of the trial, which would result in his acquittal. Petition allowed |
| 10 |
CRLMP / 6529 / 2024 (KALAWATI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 25/09/2024
Petitioners are seeking quashing of an FIR for an alleged offence u/s 420 of IPC. HELD: Even if the prosecution's narrative is accepted, it reveals that the purported forged signature was used in an application submitted before the SDM Padampur. Furthermore, the complainant did not file a formal complaint with the SDM. U/s 340 and 195 CrPC, only the SDM or another competent authority can initiate action after an inquiry. No ingredients of S. 420 IPC are made out. Petition allowed. |
