| 1 | 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. |
| 2 | 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. |
| 3 | CW / 4005 / 2006 (PRADHUMAN SINGH VS STATE AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 21/11/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of the penalty of withholding two increments, alleging illegal inquiry and violation of natural justice. HELD-the inquiry was lawful, evidence showed negligence, punishment was proportionate, and writ review cannot reassess findings absent perversity or procedural illegality; no interference was warranted and the petition was dismissed. The Court noted that criminal and departmental standards differ and Article 226 permits limited supervisory review. |
| 4 | CW / 10154 / 2019 (NAKUL PATIDAR VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 19/11/2025 The petitioners sought consideration for transfer to TSP areas under the applicable circular. Held- recruitment under TSP reservation gave rise to a legitimate expectation of posting in tribal/mineral area. State cannot extend an attractive promise at recruitment & later departs from it without any rational justification. To balance equities & ensure the petitioners are not left remediless. Writ Peti. Disposed of with directions to the respondents for shifting/ adjustment in TSP area. |
| 5 | CRLA / 478 / 2013 (HANUMAN AND ORS. VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 14/11/2025 Appellants seek setting aside of their conviction u/Sec 306 IPC, asserting absence of instigation or requisite mens rea. HELD-that for abetment of suicide, prosecution must establish a proximate act of instigation or intentional aid as contemplated u/Sec 107 IPC. Mere demand of money or financial dispute, without conduct compelling the deceased to perceive suicide is insufficient. As essential ingredients were not proved, the conviction & sentence were set aside, appellants were acquitted. |
| 6 | CW / 13775 / 2024 (NOPARAM VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 13/11/2025 Peti. seeks quashing of the order disqualifying him from the post of Chairman, contending that alleged ineligibility u/ Sec 28(10) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 could not be examined u/Sec 28(13). HELD—that the alleged disqualification was a pre-election issue and not a case of a member having become disqualified after election. The Registrar lacked jurisdiction under Section 28(13), such disputes lie under Section 58. The impugned order was therefore set aside. |
| 7 | CW / 645 / 2025 (M/S. TATA BRICKS COMPANY (OLD NAME VIP INT UDYOG) VS RAJASTHAN STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD) Date of Order/Judgment: 30/10/2025 Petitioner challenged imposition of Environmental Compensation by RSPCB for alleged operation w/o valid Consent to Operate, pursuant to NGT directions. HELD: In absence of statutory rules, RSPCB lacked jurisdiction to levy Environmental Compensation. CPCB guidelines have no legislative backing. Following the Apex Court in D.P.C.C. vs. Lodhi Properties, such compensation can be imposed only after subordinate legislation is framed. Writ allowed; impugned orders quashed. |
| 8 | CW / 1149 / 2018 (BHAGWAN SINGH VS SUPTD.ENG.PAWAS,AVVNL,BANSWARA AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/10/2025 Petitioner, aged father of a deceased employee, sought directions against his daughter-in-law appointed on compassionate grounds, alleging failure to maintain him despite a solemn affidavit. HELD: Compassionate appointment is a welfare measure carrying fiduciary obligation towards all dependents. Respondent breached her undertaking, defeating the scheme’s object. Petition allowed; respondents directed to deduct ₹20,000 per month from her salary and credit it to Pet. towards maintenance. |
| 9 | CRLA / 366 / 1993 (FULA RAM AND ORS. VS STATE) Date of Order/Judgment: 15/10/2025 Appellants challenged their conviction u/s 148, 304 (I) r/w 149 and 323/149 IPC for the death of Kashiram. HELD: Medical & ocular evidence showed fatal injuries were caused only by two deceased accused. No overt act, common object or participation was proved against surviving appellants. Mere presence at the spot is insufficient to attract Sec. 149. Trial Court erred in applying constructive liability. The appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted. |
| 10 | CW / 3898 / 2020 (PARAS VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 10/10/2025 Petitioner seeks recognition of his earlier joining and corresponding increment and pay fixation, asserting the delay was caused solely by the employer. HELD-that an employee cannot suffer for an administrative lapse, that the principle against a party benefiting from its own wrong applies, and that unequal treatment with similarly placed candidates violates Articles 14 and 16. Petitioner was therefore entitled to full benefits and the writ 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 / 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. |
| 5 | 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. |
| 6 | ARBAP / 64 / 2024 (SOHAN BAI W/O LATE SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR NAGAR VS UNION OF INDIA) Date of Order/Judgment: 07/11/2025 Applicant seeks appointment of an independent arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 due to inaction of the respondents. HELD-that on filing of a Section 11(6) application, the respondent forfeits its contractual right to appoint an arbitrator. Any subsequent appointment is void and without jurisdiction, warranting court intervention, and accordingly an independent arbitrator was appointed by the Court. The application was accordingly allowed. |
| 7 | CRLMP / 89 / 2019 (ANUJ SHARMA S/O SHRI D.D. SHARMA B/C BRAHMIN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 03/11/2025 Petitioner seeks quashing of cognizance for offence under Section 497 IPC. HELD- the Court held that once Section 497 IPC was struck down as unconstitutional, it became void from inception and the declaration operates retrospectively on pending case, continuation of prosecution would amount to abuse of process. Accordingly, the cognizance order, revisional order and all proceedings arising from the FIR were quashed. |
| 8 | CRLMP / 1962 / 2010 (DR VINAY SUREN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR) Date of Order/Judgment: 29/10/2025 Pet. sought quashing of FIR u/s 304-A & 420 IPC alleging medical negligence causing death of a newborn. FIR was initially closed by negative final report but later charge-sheet filed after further investigation based on expert medical opinions. HELD: Further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. was lawful. Medical Board reports indicated negligence & misrepresentation of expertise. No illegality in cognizance/framing of charges. Petition dismissed. |
| 9 | CRLMB / 5094 / 2025 (HITANSHU SANKHLA S/O SH. DIVAKAR SANKHLA VS UNION OF INDIA (CENTRAL NARCOTICS BUREAU)) Date of Order/Judgment: 28/10/2025 Applicant sought bail u/s 483 BNSS in an NDPS case involving recovery of 0.31 grams LSD on blotter papers and 6.1 grams ganja from a hostel room. HELD: Blotter paper forms an integral part of LSD; combined weight determines quantity. Recovery constituted commercial quantity attracting Section 37 NDPS Act. Mandatory conditions for bail not satisfied. Bail application dismissed. |
| 10 | CW / 13716 / 2025 (DR. MRS. VINOD KUMARI SANGWAN W/O SHRI MANVIR SINGH SANGWAN VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/10/2025 Petitioner, an elected Pradhan, challenged her suspension, charge-sheet & preliminary enquiry arising from allegations of obstructing & assaulting a public servant. HELD: Preliminary enquiry was valid; sufficient opportunity of hearing was granted. Issuance of charge-sheet initiated enquiry under Section 38(1) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 justifying suspension under Section 38(4). Suspension order recorded reasons and was not arbitrary. Writ petition dismissed. |
| 11 | CW / 15081 / 2025 (SUDHA MEDICAL COLLEGE VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 16/10/2025 Petitioner medical college sought direction to RUHS to grant fresh Consent of Affiliation (CoA) for increase of MBBS seats from 100 to 150 for A.Y. 2025–26. Request was denied citing lapse of affiliation calendar & absence of fresh CoA. HELD: Objection of alternate remedy is not tenable. RUHS had already issued CoA for 150 seats & clarified its three-year validity; denial on technical grounds was arbitrary. No delay or concealment of material fact attributable to Pet.; Writ allowed. |
| 12 | CRLA / 519 / 1996 (STATE VS KAILASH AND ORS.) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/10/2025 State appealed against acquittal in a murder case arising from FIR No.53/1987. HELD: Prosecution evidence suffered from major contradictions regarding place of incident, role of accused, weapons used and presence of witnesses. Cross-cases, hostile witnesses, doubtful recoveries and inconsistency with medical evidence created serious doubt. Trial Court’s view was a plausible one. Appeal dismissed; acquittal affirmed. |
| 13 | CW / 15414 / 2025 (NARENDRA MAHALA S/O SHRI SURESH KUMAR MAHALA VS STATE OF RAJASTHAN) Date of Order/Judgment: 08/10/2025 Petitioner, a NEET-UG qualified candidate, sought condonation of a few hours’ delay in depositing balance MBBS fees due to death of his guardian & intervening holidays. His seat was treated vacant. HELD: Delay was bona fide; forfeiture of security deposit amounted to unjust enrichment. Procedural lapse which can be condoned should not defeat merit. No third-party rights are created. Pet. permitted to participate in Round-III counselling with adjustment of deposited amount; Petition allowed. |
| 14 | CW / 1564 / 2023 (ANAND PRAKASH AGARWAL S/O LATE SHRI MADAN LAL AGARWAL VS THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JODHPUR) Date of Order/Judgment: 12/07/2025 Petitioners assail the final seniority list of Assistant Registrars under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, claiming earlier promotions entitled them to higher seniority. HELD- the Court held that under Clause 12 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, promotion to Assistant Registrar is solely merit-based. Rule 20 proviso and Premlata Joshi were inapplicable. The seniority list was upheld, with liberty to file representation for remaining grievances. |
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
