CRLA / 274 / 1993 (STATE VS CHANDRA AVTAR) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/12/2025 The State and the complainant sought enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondents for offences of cheating and forgery. HELD- that enhancement can be ordered only when the sentence is manifestly inadequate, perverse or illegal. Finding that the Trial Court exercised discretion within statutory limits and no perversity or illegality was shown, interference was declined. The conviction and sentence were affirmed, and the criminal appeal and revision petition were dismissed.
2
CRLA / 494 / 1994 (BRIJ MOHAN @ RAJA VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/12/2025 The appellant sought reversal of the conviction under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 323 IPC. HELD- that the incident occurred inside a closed showroom and not in public view, an essential ingredient of Section 3(1)(x). The dispute was commercial, the demand draft was not proved, and no medical evidence supported the assault. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was set aside, the appellant acquitted, and appeal allowed.
3
CRLA / 680 / 1998 (HIMMAT SINGH VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 05/12/2025 The appellant sought setting aside of conviction under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. HELD- that gas regulators are not declared essential commodities and no control order was produced. The seized articles were not proved to be regulators nor examined, and recovery suffered from defects without independent support. On parity with the acquitted co-accused, the prosecution failed. The conviction was set aside, the appellant acquitted, bail bonds discharged, fine refunded.
4
CRLMB / 7940 / 2025 (ADNAN HAIDAR BHAI VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/11/2025 Applicants seek bail in a digital-arrest fraud case. HELD-prima facie evidence showed accused’s involvement in an organized cyber-extortion network and custodial safeguards were needed, bail was rejected. Court found that IOs are not expert in technology. Various directions issued for handling these types of crimes to ACS Homes, DGP, D.G, SCRB & Cyber, Banks & Financial Institution & other Companies & Department etc..
5
CW / 8162 / 2020 (HARJEET SINGH VS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE) Date of Order/Judgment: 24/11/2025 The petitioner sought compassionate appointment, asserting that rejection on the ground of non-indigence ignored liabilities, medical expenses & absence of livelihood. HELD-that a narrow interpretation of “indigent” renders compassionate appointment an illusory promise and that terminal benefits are not perennial income. Holding the rejection arbitrary and unsustainable, the impugned orders were set aside, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, and the writ petition was allowed.
1
CRLMP / 6829 / 2025 (STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS BHAWANI SINGH RAJAWAT S/O KISHORE SINGH) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/12/2025 The State sought leave to withdraw prosecutions pending against sitting and former MLAs under Section 321 CrPC, arising from FIRs relating to peaceful public protests. HELD- that withdrawal requires High Court leave and must subserve public interest. Finding that the agitations were peaceful, offences were petty, and no disturbance of public order was alleged, the Court granted leave to the State to move applications for withdrawal before the Trial Court. The petitions were allowed.
2
CRLW / 1134 / 2025 (KAPTAN SINGH S/O SHRI AMAR SINGH VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 04/12/2025 The petitioner sought quashing of the order opening a history sheet under Rule 4.9 of the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965. HELD- that a history sheet can be opened only against a habitual offender on reasoned satisfaction. With only one conviction and other cases ending in acquittal or quashing, the petitioner could not be treated as a habitual offender. The action was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21. The order was quashed, the petition allowed, and applications disposed of.
3
CW / 3804 / 2025 (YATENDRA KUMAR NAGORI VS THE SPECIAL SECRETARY CUM VICE-CHAIRPERSON(KVS)) Date of Order/Judgment: 27/11/2025 The petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal’s order and termination, alleging false implication and violation of procedure. HELD-that allegations of immoral conduct with a Class VI student were proved in inquiry and corroborated by other students. The petitioner was granted reasonable opportunity and Article 81(B) of the Education Code was complied with. Holding the misconduct grave and the punishment proportionate, the Court declined interference and dismissed the writ petition. .
4
CRLMP / 5786 / 2025 (ASHISH DAVE SON OF SHRI MOHAN CHANDRA NAGAR, VS THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/11/2025 The petitioner sought quashing of FIR, contending that the allegations did not disclose any cognizable offence. HELD- that the FIR, read as a whole, contains specific allegations which prima facie disclose cognizable offences warranting investigation. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or examine the correctness of allegations. Finding no abuse of process or mala fides, the Court declined interference and disposed of the petition.
5
CRLMP / 4839 / 2019 (NAGENDRA CHOUDHARY S/O SHRI DEVENDRA SNGH CHOUDHARY VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 26/11/2025 The petitioner sought quashing of criminal proceedings u/Sec 276C (1)(i) of the Income Tax Act, contending that the penalty for alleged concealment, forming the sole basis of prosecution, had been set aside by the ITAT. HELD- that where the Tribunal, as final fact-finding authority, has negated concealment on merits, prosecution on identical facts cannot survive. The presumption under Section 278E cannot operate without foundational facts. The proceedings were accordingly quashed.
