NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 141 - 160]

Jogendra Pal v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 141

Chetan Prakash Sharma v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 149

NM v AK; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 152

Priyanka & Ors. v Swarn Singh & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 153

Mahesh Tiwari v The State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 154

PD Gurjar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 155

Bhuriya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 156

Shankar & Anr. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 157

Ashok Kumar Saini v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 158

Sunil Kumar Yadav v Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 159

Jagdish v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 160

Order/Judgments of the Week

Magistrate May Seek Police Assistance Under Section 225 BNSS To Probe Complaint Without Ordering FIR: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Jogendra Pal v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 141

Rajasthan High Court has held that under Section 225 BNSS before issuing process, a Magistrate can–without ordering an FIR, direct a police officer or any other person who he thinks fit to conduct an investigation on a complaint to decide if there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.

The court observed that this investigation under Section 225 BNSS is "an extension of the Magistrate's inquiry" and not a substitute for police investigation under Section 175 BNSS, wherein the purpose of the former is to assist the Magistrate in concluding his inquiry before issuing process.

The bench of Justice Farjand Ali further observed that “investigation” used in Section 225 did not mean a "full-fledged police investigation", neither it authorized exercise of coercive powers like arrest or filing of charge sheet. Rather, it led to a discreet report or factual input to aid the Magistrate in forming his opinion for proceeding further.

“A significant and progressive departure introduced under the BNSS is the incorporation of a participatory safeguard, whereby the proposed accused is accorded a limited right of hearing at the pre-process stage. This innovation seeks to infuse procedural fairness and to prevent mechanical issuance of process without due application of mind, thereby strengthening the balance between the rights of the complainant and the proposed accused.”

Govt Department Can't Terminate Outsourced Employee; Can Only Recommend Action To Agency: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Chetan Prakash Sharma v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 149

The Rajasthan High Court has held an employee working with government through an outsourcing agency can't be terminated by the department and the proper recourse is to request or recommend action to the concerned agency.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman made the observation while dealing with a case where the Petitioner was working as State Coordinator E-Governance under Rashtriya Gram Swaraja Abhiyan of the Panchayati Raj Department, through an outsourcing agency, and his services were terminated by the concerned department.

The Court noted that instead of approaching the agency with the grievance, the government had directly terminated the petitioner treating him as their employee.

Husband Obtaining Divorce Decree From Foreign Court Without Informing Wife Constitutes Cruelty: Rajasthan High Court

Title: NM v AK

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 152

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a husband obtaining an ex-parte divorce decree from a foreign court without informing the wife, amounts to cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act.

The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal further affirmed that in the present case, the ex-parte decree of divorce passed by a Court in California, USA, could not be relied upon since no certified copy of the same as proved by the husband, and the wife was not given effective opportunity to contest the same.

"Our opinion, ibid, is based on the decisive factor informing us about the conceded circumstance that the respondent-husband secured an ex parte decree of divorce from a court in the United States way back in 2015. The appellant-wife asserts that she became aware of this development only in 2018. Regardless of the precise timeline of such knowledge, the factual significance of this event unliterally by husband cannot be understated. The husband's act of one-sidedly dissolving the marriage abroad is a clear and unequivocal manifestation of his intention to sever the marital bond, apart from leaving the wife shocked, which is nothing but an act of cruelty upon her".

HRA, Other Allowances Forming Part Of Deceased's Income Must Be Included To Calculate Motor Accident Compensation: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Priyanka & Ors. v Swarn Singh & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 153

Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that the amount paid to the deceased in his income towards Higher Duties allowance, City Compensatory Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Washing allowance etc., cannot be deducted while calculating accident compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

While enhancing the compensation to the claimants, the bench of Justice Sandeep Taneja held that the district judge was not justified in deducting such amount while calculating the compensation towards the loss of dependency.

"In view of the law expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal was not justified in deducting the amount from the monthly salary of the deceased which was being paid to him towards Higher Duties Allowance (HDA), City Compensatory Allowance (CCA), House Rent Allowance (HRA), washing allowance, other misc. allowances. Therefore, the above allowances would be part of the income of the deceased, for the purpose of calculating the compensation towards loss of dependency".

Reverse Burden U/S 139 NI Act Strengthens Fair Trial Rights: Rajasthan High Court Orders FSL Exam Of Disputed Cheque Signatures

Title: Mahesh Tiwari v The State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 154

The Rajasthan High Court has held that since Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a presumption in favour of the cheque holder and places the burden on the accused to rebut that presumption, the right to a fair trial assumes greater significance. The Court observed that where the accused is required to disprove liability, fair and adequate opportunities to defend oneself must be protected more strongly.

“Since the presumption is in favour of the holder, it is for the accused to disprove his guilt. In such a scenario, naturally the right to fair trial becomes stronger. Thus, this right deserves to be protected more strongly and emphatically than in ordinary criminal offences under the Penal Code, 1860.”

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Case U/S 498A IPC Against Sister-In-Law, Says Relatives Often Implicated In 'Heat Of Moment'

Title: PD Gurjar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 155

While quashing cognizance under Section 498A, IPC, against the married sister-in-law of the deceased, Rajasthan High Court observed that it was common that most of the matrimonial complaints were filed in the heat of the moment, wherein the relatives of far-relation were also implicated as accused.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that ordinarily, in matrimonial disputes, the women was subjected to physical violence only by her husband or parents-in-law and married sister-in-law was unlikely to join her brother in demanding dowry from his wife.

“She had nothing to gain from the case or articles of dowry or the articles alleged to have been given by the parents of the deceased to her husband or her in-laws. Therefore, there would be no good reasons for her to intervene in a matter of dowry and harm and harass her sister-in law (the deceased).”

Rajasthan High Court Grants Parole To Life Convict Despite Absconding History, Cites Long Incarceration

Title: Bhuriya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 156

While allowing application for parole of a murder convict with a history of absconding, Rajasthan High Court held that the word “ordinarily” used in Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Prisoners Release on Parole Rules, 1958, reflected that the ineligibility under the Rule had to be seen considering all facts and circumstances of a case.

For context, Rule 14 prescribes classes of prisoners who will ordinarily not be eligible for release on parole.

The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma held that if certain ineligibility was mentioned under the first part of Rule 14, the Court were free to consider the facts and circumstances in the appropriate case.

Citing Manusmriti, Rajasthan High Court Allows Recall Of Prosecutrix In Rape Case After Marriage With Accused; Considers Interest Of Child

Title: Shankar & Anr. v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 157

Rajasthan High Court allowed application of rape accused to recall the victim and her mother for re-examination in light of changed circumstances of marriage between the accused and the victim as well as a daughter being born out of their wedlock.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if the statements of the victim and mother were not recorded again, it would destroy the matrimonial life of the victim and the accused, as well as the future of their daughter.

While quoting Manusmriti, the Court held that Courts were not mere abiters of breakdown of marriage, but also guardians of marriage, especially when children were born out of it.

“After marriage of the petitioner with the prosecutrix, if any child has born from their wedlock, then it is the duty of the petitioner to protect both the prosecutrix and the child and they cannot be left unprotected. At present, the trial is still going on and if the prosecutrix is recalled, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution and to any other person. As such, this Court can invoke the power provided under Section 311 of Cr.P.C for recalling of these witnesses.”

Rajasthan High Court Quashes Recovery From Employee Over Missing Stock, Says Misappropriation Allegations Require Disciplinary Proceedings

Title: Ashok Kumar Saini v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 158

The Rajasthan High Court has held that when there is any serious misconduct on part of employee resulting in financial loss to the employer, the latter ought to initiate appropriate proceedings as permissible under the regulations, rather than ordering recovery solely on verification report.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing a petition filed by government employee who was working as a Mechanic with Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC). A physical verification of stock was conducted by the authority in which 8 tyres and 6 rims were found missing.

“…there is a serious charge of misappropriation. When there is any serious misconduct which resulting in financial loss to the respondents, the respondents ought to have initiated appropriate proceedings as permissible under the regulations. In the present case, simply basing on the verification report, a show cause notice has been issued and after submission of petitioner's explanation to the show cause notice, the impugned order of recovery has been passed.”

Appellate Authority Can't Enhance Punishment In Employee's Own Appeal Without Following Due Procedure: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Sunil Kumar Yadav v Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 159

The Rajasthan High Court has held that an appellate authority under the disciplinary rules of an organisation cannot enhance the punishment in an appeal filed by the delinquent in his/her own interest.

The bench of Justice Munnuri Laxman was hearing a petition challenging the order of the disciplinary authority as well as that of the appellate authority that enhanced the punishment of the petitioner in an appeal filed by him against the first order.

“The appellate powers are exercisable upon the appeal filed by aggrieved party…Since the provision as referred above enables the appellate authority to enhance the punishment, it does not mean that the appellate authority can enhance the punishment in the appeal filed by the delinquent against his own interest.”

In relation to Regulation 16 as referred to by the State, the Court observed that to be able to exercise power under this, the court first had to take suo moto cognizance. It was highlighted that in the present matter, there was no record to show that such cognizance was taken by the appellate authority before passing order for enhancing the punishment.

Rajasthan High Court Directs Legal Services Authority To Arrange Treatment For Convict's Daughter, Declines Repeated Parole

Title: Jagdish v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 160

While dismissing a convict's plea for emergent parole for his daughter's treatment at AIIMS, the Rajasthan High Court directed the District Legal Service Authority, Sirhoi, to make suitable arrangement for her treatment at Sirohi or at appropriate centre.

The division bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma observed that considering the fact that petitioner's daughter was suffering from a psychiatric disorder, she would require regular treatment. However, the petitioner could not be allowed emergent parole at regular intervals.