Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 283 To 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 327

NOMINAL INDEX

Gajendra Singh Shekhawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 283

Goverdhan Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other related petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 284

Hafeez & Ors. v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 285

Satya Narayan v State of Rajasthan and other related petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 286

Akshay Kumar Vaishnav & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan and other related petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 287

Anil Kumar Purohit v Ashok Kumar Purohit & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 288

Urvashi Bishnoi & Ors. v State of Rajasthan and other connected petition 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 289

Yagyajeet Singh Chauhan v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 290

Ramkaran v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 291

Gulam Hussain v State and Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 292

X v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 293

Chhinder Singh v State 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 294

Munshi Ram v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 295

Rohit Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 296

Ashraj Stone Private Limited v Karav International 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 297

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Jethmal Singh & Ors. and connected cross objection 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 298

Purna Shanker Sharma v the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 299

State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Bharti 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 300

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur -II v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 301

Smt. Leela Devi v Union of India and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 302

Vinay Suri v State of Rajasthan and other connected petition 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 303

Sapna Nimawat v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 304

Jitendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 305

Kishore Singh Mertiya v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 306

Smt. Bhanwri v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 307

Ramandeep v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 308

Rupa Ram & Anr. v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 309

RL v. State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 310

Jassa Ram v State of Rajasthan 2024 Livelaw (Raj) 311

Mahesh Kumar & Anr. v State of Rajasthan 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 312

Ranidan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and connected petition 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 313

Nitisha Choudhary & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and connected petitions 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 314

2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 315

Smt. Sunita Dixit v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 316

Chaina Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 317

Lal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 318

M/s Anik Industries Ltd v. M/s Shree Rajasthan Sintex Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 319

Chatar Singh Chouhan & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 320

Amar Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 321

Mohd. Umar v State of Rajasthan and Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 322

Yudhishter Singh Rajpurohit v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 323

Neeraj Saxena v Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 324

Omprakash Chauhan v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 325

Victim Minor through natural guardian v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 326

Amit Kumar Dave v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 327

Orders/Judgments of the Month

S.193(9) BNSS Bars Further Investigation After Filing Of Police Report Without Permission Of Trial Court: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Gajendra Singh Shekhawat v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 283

Rajasthan High Court clarified that in light of proviso to Section 193(9) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (“BNSS”), where the police has already filed the report following investigation against the prime accused, no further investigation can be carried out without the permission of the trial court.

Seniority Of LDCs (Junior Assistant) In Panchayati Raj For Promotion Is Based On Merit, Not Appointment Date: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Goverdhan Kumar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other related petitions

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 284

Rajasthan High Court ruled that while preparing the seniority list of the LDCs (Junior Assistants) appointed in the Panchayat Samities under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (“Act”) and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (“Rules”), merit position of the person should be considered and not the date of appointment when the person actually joined the duty.

The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur was hearing a petition filed by an individual who was rendering services as a LDC (Junior Assistant). When a list of seniority was prepared by the State Government (respondent) for promotions to the post of UDC (Senior Assistant) they took into consideration the appointment date instead of the merit position of the selected candidates. Hence, the petition was filed challenging the same.

Cutting Someone's Nose Causes Permanent Disfigurement, Affects Self Esteem And Brings Social Stigma: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Bail

Title: Hafeez & Ors. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 285

Rajasthan High Court observed that the act of cutting someone's nose is a serious crime due to its physical, emotional and social implications. It held that nose is a crucial part of human body having both functional and cultural significance because in Indian culture, cutting off a person's nose was a form a punishment or revenge.

The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni observed that cutting of nose had permanent consequences like disfigurement especially when nose being a prominent feature of face contributed to identity, appearance and self-esteem. The Court also held that in light of the culture and symbolic significance that such disfigurement of nose holds in Indian culture, it could lead to emotional distress and social stigma.

[NDPS Act] Not Enough For Second Officer To Verbally State That SHO Authorised Search; Must Present Documentary Proof: Rajasthan HC

Title: Satya Narayan v State of Rajasthan and other related petitions

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 286

A single bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni at the Rajasthan High Court recently granted bail to three men in an NDPS Act case, after noting that the officer who had conducted the search and seizure did not have the documentary evidence to prove that he was legally authorised to conduct the search under the Act.

In doing so, the high court, while referring to Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act, said that certain powers under the provisions rests only with the SHO of the concerned police station. It thereafter noted that the seizure officer in the present case was not authorized by the concerned SHO to carry out the action, thereby vitiating the same.

Work Of Yoga Instructors Not Similar To AYUSH Nurses, Compounders: Rajasthan HC Denies Plea For Bonus Marks In Recruitment

Title: Akshay Kumar Vaishnav & Ors. v the State of Rajasthan and other related petitions

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 287

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court ruled that while Ayurveda and Yoga complement each other, they are not substitutes as both have their own roots and origins and distinct ways of operating towards the goal of purification of the body.

A single judge bench of Justice Farjand Ali in its order said, "Ayurveda & Yoga complement each other but cannot substitute each other as both have their own roots and origin from which they have emerged. Although both of these operate towards the common goal which is related to purify body of a human being but the ways in which it works is totally distinct from each other...Both of these are different in nature as Ayurveda has developed itself from traditional medicine to modern science whereas Yoga is a physical activity which ensures a bond between mind and body in a composed manner. In doing Yoga activities, nothing is supposed to swallowed, drink, consumed or applied to the body while the above same are the necessary concomitant of the Ayurveda theory.”

Court's Discretion Under O.VII R.1A(3) CPC Must Be Exercised Carefully, Without Entering Issues To Be Addressed In Trial: Rajasthan HC

Title: Anil Kumar Purohit v Ashok Kumar Purohit & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 288

The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal at the Rajasthan High Court affirmed that while exercising discretion under Order VIII Rule 1A(3), CPC, the Court cannot take into account the probative and evidentiary value of the document or even the admissibility or reliability of the same since these are considered and decided at the appropriate stage of civil proceedings.

"Family Ties Are Paramount, Courts Can't Perpetuate Discord": Rajasthan High Court While Quashing Cross FIRs Over Family Altercation

Title: Urvashi Bishnoi & Ors. v State of Rajasthan and other connected petition

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 289

While quashing cross FIRs registered by family members against one another, Rajasthan High Court ruled that court's primary objective must be to strength family bonds and not to perpetuate discord among family members.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing quashing petition in relation to cross-FIRs for criminal assault and causing hurt, filed by members of the same family owing to an altercation.

It was opined that continuing the FIRs, would only escalate the family tensions and family ties were paramount, hence priority must be given to maintaining unity within families.

Denying Arms License To Renowned Shooter Based On Family's Criminal Background Is Shocking, Violative Of Articles 14 And 21: Rajasthan HC

Title: Yagyajeet Singh Chauhan v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 290

Rajasthan High Court expressed shock over the State Government's decision to deny an Arms license to a renowned shooter, who had won many laurels for the country, on the grounds that there was every likelihood of the petitioner ending up in criminal activities since her family was also involved in criminal offences.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta opined that sports were like an occupation taken part in either for fame or pleasure, hence the act of the State Government of refusing the license was not only arbitrary but also violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, denying such a license also impinged her rights under Article 14 since she was being discriminated against solely due to her family background.

Assigning Mark/Exhibit To Document In Criminal Trial Is A Ministerial Function, Immaterial During Recording Evidence: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Ramkaran v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 291

Rajasthan High Court ruled that the act of assigning an exhibit or a mark to a document was a ministerial function meant to identify the document presented before the Court, and such assignment is immaterial at the time of recording evidence.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga held that even if a document was assigned an exhibit but later found not to be duly proved in accordance with law or was otherwise inadmissible, its exclusion could be sought at the appropriate stage. Conversely, if a document was initially marked and was later proved according to law and deemed admissible, the concerned party could request the court to consider it at the appropriate time.

[IPC 498A] Sister-In-Law Calling Brother's Wife To Her Home, Quarrelling Does Not Amount To Cruelty: Rajasthan HC Upholds Discharge Order

Title: Gulam Hussain v State and Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 292

Rajasthan High Court affirmed a 22-year-old order of the Sessions Court to the effect that the act of a woman's sister-in-law calling her home and quarrelling does not amount to cruelty for dowry.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition against an order of the Sessions Court in which the accused was discharged from the alleged offence. The Court perused the reasoning of the Sessions Court which had held that there was no strained relationship between the deceased and her husband or the mother-in-law, neither there was any evidence of the sister-in-law harassing the deceased for dowry except for calling her at house and quarrelling. However, this was not considered sufficient to attract the charges of cruelty for dowry.

'Complete Misuse Of Police Powers In Filing FIR': Rajasthan High Court Nixes Extortion Case By One Minor Girl Against Another

Case Title: X v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 293

While quashing an FIR registered on the complaint of a 17-year-old girl alleging extortion by a 15-year-old girl, Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court questioned its registration without verification of basic facts, adding that the FIR indicated a complete abuse of police powers.

A single-judge bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order observed:

“It is rather unfathomable as to how at the first instance, FIR came to be registered without even verifying the preliminary basic facts. Both the complainant and the petitioner accused being juvenile, the FIR in question is a complete abuse and misuse of police powers and is accordingly not sustainable.”

Intentional Insult, Intimidation Under SC/ST Act Must Be Made In Public: Rajasthan HC Sets Aside "Mechanical" Cognizance Order

Case Title: Chhinder Singh v State

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 294

While setting aside an order taking cognizance of an offence under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Rajasthan High Court said that the provision requires that the intentional insult or intimidation takes place in public in the presence of other people.

In observing so, a single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga said that in the present case, it was the complainant who had visited the petitioner (accused) at a location which was not a public place and there was no evidence of the remarks being made in public, and that the trial court and special judge failed to note this element.

Magistrate's Role U/S 145 CrPC To Ensure Public Peace, Not Settle Property Disputes Like Civil Court: Rajasthan High Court

Case Title: Munshi Ram v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 295

The Rajasthan High Court said that the role of the magistrate under Section 145 CrPC is to ensure public peace when there is a dispute over possession of property and order not to settle property disputes which are under the purview of civil courts.

The court said this after noting that in the present case there were already civil proceedings ongoing between the parties before the concerned court over the disputed land, and hence the magistrate's role was limited.

A single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order underscored, "Once civil litigations regarding the property are already pending, the Magistrate under Section 145 CrPC should not delved into making findings on the civil/possession/title rights of the parties concerning the property. The purpose of Section 145 is to maintain public peace and order when there's a dispute over possession of property, and not to determine the rightful owner".

Accused Can Refuse To Give Blood Sample After Court Orders DNA Profiling In Rape Case: Rajasthan High Court

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 296

Title: Rohit Kumar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that a judicial order permitting DNA profiling of an accused in a rape case does not by itself violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3), because even after passing of such an order by the court, the choice would lie with the accused to refuse giving his blood sample.

Single-judge bench of Justice Arun Monga observed,

"...option/choice lies with the petitioner whether or not to give his blood sample for the contemplated DNA test. If he does not want not to give his blood sample for the contemplated DNA test, the petitioner can appear in the learned trial Court and make a categorical statement refusing to give his blood sample. Needless to say that in that case, he will bear the legal consequences of such refusal."

[S.419(4) BNSS] Only If Complainant Is Not 'Victim' Of Crime, Leave To Appeal Against Acquittal Is Required: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Ashraj Stone Private Limited v Karav International

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 297

Rajasthan High Court clarified that in cases where the complainant is a 'victim' of crime, as defined under Section 2(y) of BNSS, s/he is not required to prefer an application before the High Court seeking leave to appeal against acquittal, as is provided under Section 419(4) of BNSS.

The bench of Justice Birendra Kumar clarified that a leave to appeal was required by the complainant, as mentioned under Section 419(4), in cases where the complainant was not the victim. Since criminal proceedings could be set in motion by anyone having knowledge of commission of any cognizable offences, if a complaint was filed by a person who was not a victim, then such person would need a leave of appeal under this provision.

Labour Hired For Loading Is Owner's Authorized Representative, Even In Absence Of Goods On Return Journey: Rajasthan HC Gives Redress Under MV Act

Case Title: Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v Jethmal Singh & Ors. and connected cross objection

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 298

Enhancing the compensation awarded in a motor accident claim by Rs. 1 Lakh, the Rajasthan High Court affirmed the liability of the Insurance Company in a case where the deceased was hired to load and unload the goods from a vehicle but when the vehicle was returning after unloading the goods, it met with an accident.

A single judge bench of Justice Nupur Bhati ruled that a labourer hired for loading and unloading the goods, while travelling, would be considered as an authorized representative of the owner of the goods, even while returning back after unloading, in the absence of such goods, if he returns back to the same place from where he was hired for such duty.

The Court also enhanced the liability of the Insurance Company in the case, by ruling that "consortium" being a non-pecuniary head for giving compensation is not to be considered in light of dependency of a claimant upon the deceased. Thus, the court said, that even the deceased's siblings qualify for compensation under this head since they are also deprived of the love, care, affection and company of the deceased, which cannot be quantified.

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Recovery Case Against Govt Employee Receiving 'Excess' Salary For 30 Years, Says Mistake Made By Department

Title: Purna Shanker Sharma v the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 299

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed a recovery order issued by the state's finance department against a government employee who was receiving excess salary on account of an error on the department's part for almost 30 years.

In doing so, high court observed that the employee did not mislead the department to get a higher pay and in fact the mistake was made by the department.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Punjab & Ors. v Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors. (2015), a single judge bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur said that the petitioner employee's case is squarely covered by parameters as enumerated in the apex court's decision.

In Rafiq Masih the apex court had laid down certain situations in which recoveries could not be made from employees who mistakenly received excess salary and one such situation was where the excess payment was made for over five years before the recovery order was issued.

Weekly, National Holidays Not Excluded From Length Of Work Experience: Rajasthan HC Reiterates In Lab Technician's Case Seeking Bonus Marks

Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Bharti

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 300

Dismissing a plea against an order asking the State to consider awarding a female lab technician "bonus marks" as per her actual work experience without excluding Sundays/National Holidays, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that as long as a Laboratory Technician/Assistant works in the lab, the "experience" obtained by them must be counted.

In doing so, the division bench, upheld the decision of a single judge bench which while allowing the contractual Laboratory Technician's plea had held that the work experience on the post of Lab Technician or Lab Assistant was "similar in nature as long as they perform their duty in the Laboratory".

A division bench of Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur in its order said, "There is no denial by the respondent (State) that under the (Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Services) Rules of 1965 the qualification for the post of Lab Assistant is (i) Senior Secondary with Science or its equivalent and (ii) any Diploma in Medical Laboratory Technology from an institute recognized by the State Government".

Due Date For Employer To Deposit Employee's Contribution To PF Not Governed By S.43B Income Tax Act: Rajasthan HC Reiterates

Title: Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur -II v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 301

The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that share of the employee in the provident fund deducted by the employer, has to be deposited as per the due date fixed by the EPF Act and ESI Act, and not as per Section 43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The division bench of Justices Avneesh Jhingan and Ashutosh Kumar observed,

“There is no leeway with the assessee in depositing of amount of employee's contribution under EPF Act and ESI Act, beyond the due date as prescribed by the respective Act. It is only on the deposit in compliance with the provisions of the EPF Act and ESI Act, the retained amount is treated for deduction.”

It cited Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (2022) where the Supreme Court had held that employers have to deposit the employee's contribution towards EPF/ESI on or before the relevant due date, under the respective Acts, for availing deduction under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.

Rajasthan HC Orders Railway To Release Family Pension To Widow Despite Omission In Nomination Form Of "Barely Literate" Husband, Imposes ₹1L Cost

Title: Smt. Leela Devi v Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 302

Irrespective of not appearing in the nomination form for the insurance scheme, Rajasthan High Court directed Department of Railway to grant family pension to the 'illiterate' widow and daughters of a deceased employee, observing that the substantive right of a citizen could not be denied on account of procedural lapses especially where the aggrieved was an illiterate.

“It is a settled position of law that in matters where the aggrieved person is illiterate or possess zilch knowledge about the legal formalities, he/she cannot be made a prey to the technicalities and complexities of law.”

The bench of Justice Sameer Jain also directed the department to pay a cost of Rs. 1,00,000 to the petitioner for the mental distress and financial loss that she had to endure over the years.

Person In Physical Possession Of Bearer Cheque Is Deemed To Be Its Beneficiary Owner, Unless Proved Otherwise: Rajasthan HC Quashes Cheating FIR

Title: Vinay Suri v State of Rajasthan and other connected petition

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 303

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court quashed an FIR against three people booked for cheating and forgery, after the complainant claimed that the former wrongfully used a blank signed cheque that was given to his money-lender as security, and passed it to someone else by filling in a fake value.

A single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga ruled that "bearer cheques are negotiable instruments and the one who was in physical possession" of these cheques is "deemed to be its beneficiary owner", unless proved otherwise.

After perusing the records of the case, the Court observed that the only contention of the complainant was that the bearer cheques were not issued to the petitioners but to some other person. However, since bearer cheques assume beneficial ownership of the possessor, no criminal culpability could be made out.

"Caste-Based Discrimination": Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR Against Woman For Entering Temple, Says It Isn't Trustees' Personal Property

Title: Sapna Nimawat v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 304

Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR filed against a woman from a marginalized community for the alleged offence of creating chaos at the Mahakaleshwar Mahadev Ji Siddh Dham temple by trying to forcibly cut open the lock of the temple and enter forcefully.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that in the background of no evidence showing criminal intent on the part of the petitioner for the alleged offence, the FIR was an abuse of law initiated with ulterior motives, especially in light of the SC/ST background of the petitioner that might have caused some discomfort among the trustees of the temple.

“The petitioner's Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe background cannot be overlooked, especially in light of the fact that access to religious institutions has historically been restricted for marginalized communities. The denial of access to the petitioner, and the subsequent criminal complaint, could very well be an instance of caste-based discrimination.”

Rajasthan HC Rejects Plea Alleging District Hospital Being Set Up Next To Land Of Municipal Board Chairman's Wife For Appreciating Its Value

Title: Jitendra Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 305

Rajasthan High Court rejected a plea alleging that the District Hospital in Deoli was being set up adjacent to the land belonging to Municipal Board Chairman's wife, in order to appreciate her land's value.

The bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan ruled that setting up a hospital is a policy decision and the Court could not sit in appeal over it. Furthermore, the Court also highlighted that the allegations were made by the Petitioner without impleading Chairman's wife as a party to the present case.

Resolving Family Disputes Using Criminal Law An Abuse Of Legal Processes: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Nephew's FIR Over Property Dispute

Title: Kishore Singh Mertiya v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 306

While quashing a nephew's FIR against his uncle for offences of cheating and forgery, Rajasthan High Court reiterated that using criminal justice system to settle family property issues is a misuse of legal process, unless there is a clear prima-facie evidence of criminal intent.

After hearing both the sides, the bench of Justice Arun Monga highlighted that the core issue between the parties was fundamentally a family property dispute of civil nature concerning inheritance and ownership that needed to be decided based on documentary evidence and applicable inheritance laws. In this light, criminal law could not be invoked.

“This dispute should be resolved through civil litigation regarding inheritance rights, not through criminal charges. Criminal law cannot be used to settle civil disputes, and the FIR appears to be an attempt to escalate a family property dispute into a criminal case.”

No Provision For Automatic Cancellation Of Driving School License On Holder's Death, State Should Allow Transfer To Successor: Rajasthan HC

Title: Smt. Bhanwri v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 307

Rajasthan High Court ruled that automatic cancellation of the license for running a motor driving school (“license”) on the death of the licensee, in the absence of any statutory provision for the same, cannot be permitted.

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana therefore quashed an order to this effect and directed the Transport Department to assess the eligibility of the deceased's wife (petitioner) under applicable laws to be granted such a license and if found eligible, transfer her husband's license in her name

Rajasthan HC Permits Accused To Virtually Join Trial From Jail, Notes Unnecessary Financial Burden On State Providing Security For His Travel

Title: Ramandeep v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 308

The bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court allowed an accused's plea for exemption from physical appearance before the trial court and permitted him to attend the proceedings, including recording of witness statements, through video conferencing, on the ground of the accused apprehending threat to security from the enemy gangs during travel.

“…it is deemed appropriate that the petitioner's physical presence be directed by learned trial Court only when it is necessary, by recording reasons. On other hearings he shall be allowed to join proceedings through video conferencing as per VC Rules framed by Rajasthan High Court.”

The Court held that in such cases, the trial court could record the reasons in writing and issue necessary orders for physical appearance of the accused. However, for the rest of the hearings, proceedings could be conducted through video conferencing as per the Video Conferencing Rules framed by the Rajasthan High Court.

Burning Dead Body Inside Someone's House Disrespectful, An Act Of Desecration: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rupa Ram & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 309

Rajasthan High Court rejected bail applications of two persons accused of trespassing the complainant's house with 40-50 people carrying arms and weapons, vandalizing it, and burning a girl's dead body inside the house.

“Involvement of 40-50 individuals and the blatant act of entering the complainant's home to commit these atrocities demonstrates a profound disregard for the law. Given that the accused were part of a large group, there is a strong likelihood that witnesses, including the complainant, may feel threatened or pressured if the accused are granted bail.”

The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni rejected the argument of the petitioner that both the Parties belonged to tribal community and the act was done pursuant to a social custom of “Mautana” since the complainant's son was responsible for the death of the girl whose body was burnt.

Rajasthan HC Refuses Bail To Uncle Booked For Rape; Says Sexual Offence Involving Family Graver, Slight Contradictions In Minor's Testimony Not Fatal

Title: RL v. State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 310

Rajasthan High Court ruled that certain contradictions in the statements of a minor victim, especially of sexual abuse, was likely due to traumatic nature of such incidents, and such minor inconsistencies in the victim's testimony were not sufficient to grant bail to the accused when the overall credibility of the allegations remained intact.

The bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni also observed that the seriousness of sexual offences, particularly those involving familial relationship, makes the crime graver and warranted stricter consideration.

The Court also highlighted that under POCSO, a presumption of guilt was created once victim's testimony was found reliable after which the burden shifted to the accused to prove his innocence in which the petitioner had failed.

“Given the vulnerable state of the victim and the fact that instant child sexual abuse case, involves an individual who have access to minor victim within the family, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.”

Mere Ownership Of Vehicle Unauthorisedly Carrying Contraband Doesn't Imply Involvement In Offence Under NDPS Act: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Jassa Ram v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 Livelaw (Raj) 311

While granting bail to an accused charged under the NDPS Act in relation to 964 Kgs of poppy straw, the bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that mere ownership or connection with the vehicle, from which the contraband was recovered, did not imply accused's knowledge or actual involvement in the crime.

After perusing the records of the case, the Court highlighted that no contraband was directly recovered from the petitioner but from an abandoned vehicle which created uncertainty about the petitioner's involvement in the matter.

“There are no independent witnesses linking the petitioner directly to the transportation of contraband. His mere ownership or connection to the vehicle does not conclusively imply his knowledge or actual involvement in the crime.”

Delay In Recording Testimony Of Key Witness Raises Doubts Over Its Credibility: Rajasthan High Court Reiterates

Title: Mahesh Kumar & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 312

While hearing a case wherein the witness had testified after a year claiming he had "seen" the men booked for murder, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court reiterated that "delay" in providing crucial evidence raises doubts on the veracity of the star witness's testimony.

Noting that there were no direct eye witnesses nor were the alleged assailants identified immediately, the court observed that the key evidence which was circumstancial could be easily challenged.

A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni was hearing the bail application filed by two men booked for the murder of the complainant's father.

While perusing the records of the case, the High Court highlighted that no individual was named by the complainant in the FIR nor was their identity disclosed. The court observed that the complainant also did not express "any suspicion" against any individual or mention "any enmity or rivalry" with anyone. It further said that the statements by the star witness, who had claimed to seeing the accused flee after the attack, were made one year after the alleged incident.

No Prior Approval U/S 17A Prevention Of Corruption Act For Laying 'Trap' Against Public Servant Demanding Illegal Gratification: Rajasthan HC

Title: Ranidan Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and connected petition

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 313

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court said that no prior approval is required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act to "trap" a public servant who allegedly demands gratification.

In doing so, the high court further said that the provision is only triggered if there is allegation of an offence committed under the PC Act.

A single judge bench of Justice Rajendra Prakash Soni in its order further said that such approval was needed only at the stage of investigation or enquiry and not for laying a trap.

It said, "There is no dispute in the fact that demanding gratification is not an official duty or function of a public servant. Rather, it is an offence and the provision of Section 17A of the Act provides for approval of enquiry or investigation of such offence, if the demand for gratification was made in the context of any of his official functions. Section 17A of the Act is triggered only if there is an allegation of offence mentioned under the P.C. Act. Here, it is important to note that if a public servant demands gratification, then no approval is required under Section 17A to trap him. If the trap proceeding is successful or unsuccessful, then the crime of accepting or attempting to accept gratification is said to have been committed by him, only thereafter, question of inquiry or investigation of that crime and approval for it arises. Thus, what is restricted by the provision is the process of enquiry or inquiry or investigation into the offences without previous approval of the Government".

State Adding Seats Few Months After Onset Of Recruitment Process But Not Revising Eligibility Cut-Off Date Against 'Equal Opportunity': Rajasthan HC

Title: Nitisha Choudhary & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors. and connected petitions

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 314

In a matter concerning recruitment of compounders/ nurses in the AYUSH department, the Rajasthan High Court said that splitting the additional vacancies arising after commencement of the process, into "two fractions" in the guise of the relevant service rules, is illegal and violates the candidates fundamental rights.

The high court further said that Rule 16 of Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules does not authorize the State Authorities to split or divide the newly accrued/ subsequently intimated posts just to make a short cut so that some of the posts can be added subsequently in the already issued advertisement.

Taking note of various Supreme Court judgments a single judge bench of Justice Farjand Ali in its 43 page order said, "A perusal of the above cited judgments clearly shows that the appointment on additional posts would deprive the candidates who were not eligible at the time of last date of submission of application forms but are eligible on the date of enhancement of seats and also if this kind of process will be followed and the previous year wait list candidates would be given a chance in the succeeding year then the same would be in violation of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India".

Minor Survivor's Testimony Not Shaken Despite Lengthy Cross Examination: Rajasthan High Court Upholds 33 Yrs Old Attempt To Rape Conviction

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 315

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court upheld a 33-year-old trial court order convicting a man for attempting to rape a minor girl, while noting that the girl's version of the incident had not been "shaken" even though she was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the defence.

After carefully examining the minor girl's statements, a single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand in its order however said, "This witness was cross examined by the appellant and slight improvement and contradictions were found, from her earlier statements which were recorded before the Police. Slight contradiction and improvements in her version were obvious because when the incident occurred on 07.02.1985 this child witness was of the age of 05 years and when her statements were recorded on 07.06.1990, her age was 11 years. Even though, the statements were recorded after 05 years and 04 months from the date of incident, the evidence of this witness has not shaken".

Withholding Retiral Benefits Due To Pending Criminal Case Unrelated To Employee's Official Duties Violates Right To Life: Rajasthan HC

Title: Smt. Sunita Dixit v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 316

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that withholding retirement benefits of an employee only on the ground of pendency of criminal proceedings which had nothing to do with the official duties was unjustified and violative of right to life because these were the sources by which the employee arrange for their necessities post retirement.

“The pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits are the earnings of an employee for the services rendered by him/her with the department. Taking away or withholding such benefits after retirement amounts to depriving the petitioner from the right to life because the retrial benefits are the sources by which the petitioner and her family arrange for their bread and other necessities.”

After perusing the material on record, the Court aligned with the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and assessed Rule 90 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 which provides for provisional pension where departmental or judicial proceedings may be pending. The Court ruled that the words “judicial proceedings” in the Rule could not be treated as the proceedings unrelated to the official duties of functioning of the employee in his/her office.

Adverse Police Report Cannot Be A Ground For Refusing Parole: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Chaina Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 317

Rajasthan High Court ruled that if the parole applicant did not suffer from any ineligibility for his/her release under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 2021 (the Rules), an adverse police report could not be a ground in itself for refusing the parole.

The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Manoj Kumar Garg observed that parole was a device of reformation and rehabilitation of a criminal into society and such object of parole could not be frustrated on the basis of vague and ill-founded reasons.

Father's Protest Petition Against Daughter-In-Law For Abetting Son's Suicide Not Ground To Deny Her Compassionate Appointment: Rajasthan HC

Title: Lal Singh v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 318

While rejecting petition filed by the father of a deceased government employee, the bench of Justice Mahendar Kumar Goyal at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that pendency of a protest petition against a negative police report in a case of abetment to suicide filed against the wife of the deceased was not a sufficient ground to deny her compassionate appointment.

Prior To 2015 Amendment Act, Non-Disclosure Of Information Per Se Not A Ground To Incur Disqualification U/S 12 Of Arbitration Act: Rajasthan High Court

Title: M/s Anik Industries Ltd v. M/s Shree Rajasthan Sintex Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 319

The Rajasthan High Court Bench of Justices Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Munnuri Laxman held that under section 12 of the Arbitration Act after the amendment act of 2015, there is a specific reference of ineligibility in the circumstances referred under the Seventh Schedule. This means per se there is an ineligibility if there exists any circumstance, which is specifically referred to in the Seventh Schedule. Such a per se ineligibility, which has been statutorily recognized under the amended provision, was not in existence under unamended section 12 of the Arbitration Act.

Rajasthan High Court Drops Grievous Hurt Charge In FIR Against Temple Security Guards After Complaint By Judicial Officer's Wife

Title: Chatar Singh Chouhan & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 320

While hearing a plea for quashing an FIR against two security personnel manning the 1300-year-old Eklingji temple, booked for alleged assault in a complaint filed by the wife of a judicial officer, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court went on to drop the offence of grievous hurt alleged against the two men from the FIR.

In doing so, the court observed that the FIR was bereft of any allegations regarding grievous injury (Section 117 BNS) and its ingredients were missing in the facts of the case. The court however said that whether or not allegations levelled by the complainant are false or true is a matter of trial.

A single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga in its order said, "As far as Section 117(2) of BNS (corresponding Section 325 of IPC) is concerned, concededly, in the absence of any elementary allegation qua the same, the factual report to that extent does not stand judicial scrutiny. A perusal of the above reflects that in the present case there is complete absence of any allegations in the FIR with regard to any grievous injury and its ingredients are lacking".

Right To Live With Dignity Includes Being Able To Fulfil Marital Vows Towards Spouse Taken During Saptapadi Ceremony: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Amar Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 321

The bench of Justice Arun Monga at the Rajasthan High Court ruled that Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity as a human being which necessarily also entailed to act as a good husband in terms of marital vows taken during the saptapadi ceremony as per Hindu rituals.

Rajasthan HC Seeks Identity Of 'Intruder' Who Caused Chaos In Online Proceedings, Directs Admin To Modify VC System To Filter Participants

Title: Mohd. Umar v State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 322

After an unwelcomed intruder interrupted the online open court proceedings by passing scathe and scurrilous comments, the Rajasthan High Court, asked the Registrar General and Registrar-cum-CPC to ascertain his identity and to explore possibilities of modifying the Webex Meeting System so that a person could not enter the online Court proceedings without the permission of the Court.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta also directed the licensor Cisco Webex to provide the mobile number and IP address of the intruder, and further sought cooperation from the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur in case the High Court administration needed any investigation, with the aid of cyber experts.

Right To Dignity Under Article 21 Includes Being Able To Attend Once In A Lifetime Family Rituals Like Son's Wedding: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Yudhishter Singh Rajpurohit v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 323

Rajasthan High Court ruled that Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India also includes Right to live with dignity that encompasses attending once in a lifetime family rituals like right of a father to attend son's marriage.

“Right to life does not mean mere right to exist but to live with dignity. Such a right cannot be and ought not be curtailed on the ground that father of petitioner father is since an accused pending cases.”

The bench of Justice Arun Monga opined that the father of the petitioner was indeed required to be personally present at the time of marriage of his son not only to facilitate marriage arrangement but to also bless the newlyweds to upkeep his dignity with his family and society.

Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right, Denying Permission To Travel Due To Pending Dept Enquiry Violates Article 21: Rajasthan HC

Title: Neeraj Saxena v Rajasthan Electronics and Instruments Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 324

Rajasthan High Court affirmed that the pendency of departmental enquiry could not be a ground to deny permission to employees to travel abroad. Such rejection of permission amounted to a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution which could not be taken away except in accordance with the procedure established by law.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also made a reference to a case decided by the Supreme Court of United States of America, Ken v Dulles (1958), in which it was held that freedom to go abroad had much social value and represented the basis human right of great significance. And such right to travel was part of “liberty” which could not be taken away from citizens without due process of law.

Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Quash Cheque Bounce Case Against Man Who 'Avoided' Arrest For 12 Years

Title: Omprakash Chauhan v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 325

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court rejected a man's quashing petition booked in a cheque bouncing case sought on the ground of compromise between parties, after noting that the plea was in effect a "review" of an earlier revision petition which had already been dismissed by the court last year.

In doing so the high court refused to interfere with a coordinate bench's decision dismissing the man's review plea, who was sentenced to one year jail time in 2011 by the trial court, but was only arrested in September this year as he had contested the decision.

A single judge bench of Justice Sameer Jain in its order noted that a coordinate single judge bench of the high court after considering the compromise entered in between the parties, exercised its revisionary powers and, based on the same set of facts dismissed the man's plea on August 21, 2023.

Psychological Aspect Not Enough To Put Two Lives In Danger: Rajasthan HC Dismisses Plea For Termination Of Minor Rape-Survivor's Pregnancy

Title: Victim Minor through natural guardian v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 326

Rajasthan High Court rejected a petition by the father of a minor rape victim for termination of his daughter's 26-weeks pregnancy, since the same was medically opined as dangerous for both the girl as well as the foetus.

The bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan ruled that the social, economic and psychological impacts were to be taken into consideration while taking the decision, however, the psychological aspect based on the societal pressure in itself was not enough to put two lives in danger.

Cheque Bounce Cases Semi Criminal/Civil In Nature, Presence Of Accused In Hearing Not To Be Insisted Upon: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Amit Kumar Dave v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 327

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has recently ruled that presence of accused particularly in cheque bouncing cases–which are semi-criminal/civil in nature, should not be ordinarily insisted upon, unless the trial court needs to either examine the accused or their statement is to be recorded.

A single judge bench of Justice Arun Monga said, "I am of the view that presence of an accused particularly in a matter of the kind in hand, where proceedings are semi criminal/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 for proceeding further in the matter".