NOMINAL INDEXDr. Uma Gupta v Satya Prakash Kumawat & Anr.; 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 289Sushma Dayal v Praveen Lodha; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 290Dileep Kumar Yadav v State of Rajasthan & Anr.Imran Mansoori v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 291Sheikh Tarique v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 292National Insurance Company Ltd. v Parmeshwar & Anr., and other connected...
NOMINAL INDEX
Dr. Uma Gupta v Satya Prakash Kumawat & Anr.; 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 289
Sushma Dayal v Praveen Lodha; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 290
Dileep Kumar Yadav v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Imran Mansoori v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 291
Sheikh Tarique v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 292
National Insurance Company Ltd. v Parmeshwar & Anr., and other connected appeal; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 293
Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 294
Ranjeet v Central Bureau of Investigation; 2026 LiveLaw(Raj) 295
Mohan Lal Sharma v Ashok Vardhan Sharma & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 296
P v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 297
Shri Mahadev Ji Kaluram Ji Ki Bawdi v Shri Milap Singh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 298
Barbdivya v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 299
Anand Singh v Union of India; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 301
Ashok Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 302
Order/Judgments of the Week
Title: Dr. Uma Gupta v Satya Prakash Kumawat & Anr.
Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 289
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an order rejecting an application under Section 311 CrPC seeking recall of a witness for cross-examination is interlocutory in nature and, therefore, cannot be challenged in revision proceedings under Section 397 CrPC.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside an order of the revisional court which had permitted the accused in a cheque bounce case to cross-examine the complainant, after holding that the revision petition itself was not maintainable.
Title: Sushma Dayal v Praveen Lodha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 290
The Rajasthan High Court has held that proceedings before a Court established under the Negotiable Instruments Act and a Commercial Court stand on an equal footing, and an accused cannot be denied access to original records necessary for his defence merely because they have been summoned in parallel proceedings.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the right to a fair trial includes access to materials required for effective cross-examination and defence, and set aside a trial court order refusing to summon records relating to a criminal case alleging interpolation of a cheque.
“Once the original record is available and the matter pertains to interpolation in the cheque and counter-foil, certainly the original cheque has to be put across to the complainant in the cross-examination and the same purpose cannot be solved by submitting photocopy or the certified copy. Therefore, it is the right of the petitioner to put up his defence and best opportunity is required to be given to him,” Court said.
Rajasthan High Court Calls For Mechanism To Ensure Timely Appearance Of Investigating Officers Before Trial Courts
Title: Dileep Kumar Yadav v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Taking note of a recurring pattern of absenteeism of Investigating Officers (IOs) before the trial courts, resulting in repeated adjournments solely for securing their presence, the Rajasthan High Court has called for a systemic mechanism for coordination between the Police Department and the Directorate of prosecution.
The bench of Justice Baljinder Singh Sindhu issued notice to the Directorate of Prosecution, Rajasthan and the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to present the existing mechanism (if any) for ensuring the appearance of IOs before the trial courts, and to indicate proposed measures for addressing the recurring issue to ensure timely conclusion of criminal trials.
The Court observed that IOs are public servants and are duty-bound to appear before the trial courts whenever their presence is required and to cooperate in the expeditious conclusion of criminal trials.
Title: Imran Mansoori v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 291
The Rajasthan High Court has held that once a party stands acquitted in a gambling case, based on withdrawal of the criminal case, there is no reason to retain the seized money in the Treasury or in the Government Fund.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand thus directed the authorities to release the amount seized from the petitioner, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall disclose the details of the source of receipt of the amount.
The Court held that the details submitted by the petitioner shall be verified by the Income Tax Department, and if the explanation was not found to be satisfactory, appropriate action could be taken against the petitioner.
Title: Sheikh Tarique v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 292
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a medical student who sought permission to appear in the remaining papers of the MBBS Final Professional Part-II examination, observing that the Court cannot ignore the interests of patients who may eventually be treated by a candidate who has failed to clear the course despite repeated attempts over fourteen years.
A division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Maneesh Sharma held that considerations such as the appellant's career prospects and financial hardship could not outweigh the larger public interest. It observed:
“A court cannot remain unmindful of the fate of patients who would be treated by a physician who has been unable to demonstrate the minimum competence prescribed, despite attempts spread over fourteen years.”
Title: National Insurance Company Ltd. v Parmeshwar & Anr., and other connected appeal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 293
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an insurance company cannot avoid liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a fake driving licence unless it proves the allegation by examining the concerned licensing authority.
Justice Ashutosh Kumar was hearing two appeals filed by the National Insurance Company Limited challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, in favour of the claimants. The insurer had contended that there had been a breach of the insurance policy as the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident.
The Court noted that the insurance company had failed to summon the licensing authority to verify whether the licence in question had actually been issued by it. The Court observed:
“…Insurance Company did not try to call the licencing authority to prove or verify the fact that the driving licence attached as Exhibit-10 was not issued by it. Therefore, while relying upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Moda Ram & Ors. (supra), in the present case, it cannot be presumed that the driving licence issued in favour of the respondent-driver was a fake one as the Insurance Company failed to call the licencing authority to prove or verify the fact that such authority did not issue that licence.”
Title: Vinod Kumar v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 294
The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by candidates seeking appointment to the posts of Assistant Professor (Vyakaran), Assistant Professor (Sahitya) and Assistant Professor (Samanya Sanskrit), holding that courts cannot expand the eligibility qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules.
Justice Ganesh Ram Meena observed that the State, as an employer, is the best judge of the qualifications required for recruitment and that the Court cannot read into the rules qualifications that have not been prescribed.
Addressing the petitioners' argument regarding the appointment of guest faculty, the Court held that even if persons lacking the requisite qualifications had been engaged as guest faculty, such appointments could not form the basis for regular recruitment. The Court observed,
“In case, the respondents have engaged any candidate without having requisite qualification as provided under the Rules, such appointments of guest faculty cannot be made basis for the regular recruitment without holding qualification of NET or SET in that particular concerned subject.”
Title: Ranjeet v Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(Raj) 295
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an FIR against two men, observing that the very origin and basis of the criminal proceedings no longer existed, since the Single Judge's order directing investigation against them had already been set aside and the underlying writ petition itself stood dismissed.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held:
"The origin and genesis of the impugned FIR is no more in existence. The order dated 13.01.2010 directing the investigation in the alleged offence and registration of the FIR was quashed by the Division Bench vide order dated 10.11.2010, while remanding the matter back to the Single Bench and the main matter seeking registration of FIR against the petitioner has already been dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2026 for non-compliance of peremptory order."
Rajasthan High Court Quashes Rape FIR After Prosecutrix Says Case Was Filed Due To Family Pressure
Title: P v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 297
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in a rape case after noting that the petitioner and the prosecutrix had married even before the registration of the FIR, were now living together in a happy and stable matrimonial relationship, and that the prosecutrix stated the FIR had been lodged due to pressure from her family. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 297]
Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu observed that the parties had married in 2020 and that their relationship had endured for nearly six years despite the pendency of the criminal proceedings. The Court held that permitting the prosecution to continue would only cause unnecessary hardship to both parties and jeopardise their settled matrimonial life.
"Having voluntarily chosen to live together long ago, and having reunited despite the intervening litigation, this Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the criminal proceedings to continue merely because the trial has reached an advanced stage."
Title: Mohan Lal Sharma v Ashok Vardhan Sharma & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 296
The Rajasthan High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against a former school principal, in a cheque dishonour case after noting that he had resigned from the post before the cheque was issued.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that once the petitioner had resigned from the post, his employer-employee relationship with the school came to an end and he could not be fastened with criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
"Criminal prosecution of any person is a serious matter as it affects the liberty of that person. No greater damage can be done to the reputation of a person than dragging him in a criminal case... the petitioner is neither liable nor responsible for the cheque in question issued, if any, under his signatures, after his resignation from the post of Principal of the School."
Title: Shri Mahadev Ji Kaluram Ji Ki Bawdi v Shri Milap Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 298
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside a trial court order rejecting an application seeking police assistance for the implementation and enforcement of an interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner in a dispute concerning renovation of the Lord Mahadev Temple.
Justice Farjand Ali held that there is a marked distinction between proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which are punitive in nature, and a prayer seeking police assistance for implementation of an existing injunction order.
The Court observed that once an injunction order has been passed, issuance of ancillary directions to ensure its effective implementation falls within the supervisory and inherent powers of the Court. It emphasized that the majesty of law lies not merely in passing judicial orders but equally in ensuring that they are respected, honoured and effectively implemented.
Title: Barbdivya v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 299
The Rajasthan High Court has ordered the Director General of Police to conduct an inquiry in the matter of a Police Inspector making reels with his son, and uploading on social media platforms, to create fan following.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that the alleged acts constitute 'very serious misconduct' on part of the officer.
“A Police Inspector indulged in preparing reels and further uploading them on social media, whether Instagram, Facebook or any other social media platform, with the assistance of his son, thereby creating a fan following, which itself is a very serious misconduct. The DGP, Rajasthan, is directed to conduct an inquiry and send a report to this Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Title: Anand Singh v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 301
The Rajasthan High Court has held that an undertrial prisoner does not forfeit the right to alienate his property and continues to enjoy his rights even in jail wherein he can validly execute a registered General or Special Power of Attorney and his attorney can legally sell the property.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed,
"the law is clear that a pre-convict/undertrial prisoner does not forfeit the right to alienate his property. He can validly execute a registered General or Special Power of Attorney from jail, through the Jail Superintendent and his attorney can thereafter, legally sell the property. The only requirement is strict adherence to procedural safeguards of attestation, registration and absence of any court attachment".
Revision Court Cannot Direct Trial Court To Take Cognizance Against Accused: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Ashok Kumar v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 302
The Rajasthan High Court has held that a Court exercising revisional jurisdiction cannot direct the Trial Court to take cognizance under Section 398 CrPC, as it merely empowers courts to order further inquiry.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand set aside the order directing the Trial Court to take cognizance for cruelty under Section 498A of IPC. The bench empahsized;
"Revisional Court/Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge cannot issue a direction to the Trial Court to take cognizance against the accused. If the Revisional Court was of the view that the order passed by the learned Trial Court was perverse, the matter could have been remitted to the Trial Court for passing fresh order on the basis of the evidence available on the record".