NOMINAL INDEX [Citations: 224 - 243]State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Nava & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 224Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 225Puran Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 226United India Insurance Co. v Shanti Devi & Ors., and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 227Pramila v State of Rajasthan; 2026...
NOMINAL INDEX [Citations: 224 - 243]
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Nava & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 224
Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 225
Puran Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 226
United India Insurance Co. v Shanti Devi & Ors., and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 227
Pramila v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 228
In Re: Protection and Conservation of Lakes and Water Bodies in Udaipur.
Lal Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 229
Shri Shanti Lal Dholi v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 230
Govind Ram Yadav & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 231
Nitin Kumar Jhalani & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 232
Satyapal Sharma & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 233
Sumann Mundhara v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 234
Sandeep Kumar Arora v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 235
Sarita Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 236
Asharam v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 237
Virendra Singh v Bhupendra Singh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 238
Smt. Santosh Pareek v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 239
Chhatrapal Singh Gour v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 240
Ex Sepoy Om Prakash v the Union of India & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 241
Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 242
Smt. Shimla Sharma & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 243
Order/Judgments of the Week
Rajasthan High Court Restores Appeal Dismissed For Non-Removal Of Defects, Says Party Can't Suffer For 'Procedural Abdication' By Lawyer
Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Nava & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 224
Rajasthan High Court restored an appeal which was earlier dismissed on account of non-curing of defects observing that administration of justice cannot be permitted to founder upon hyper-technicalities, nor can a party be made to suffer irreversible prejudice for the inadvertent default or procedural abdication of his legal representative.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali said:
"An appeal assailing such findings cannot be dismissed in limine merely because the advocate could not remove the defect within stipulated time. Such a procedural irregularity, attributable to counsel, does not ipso facto efface or annihilate the substantive and statutory right of appeal vested in the accused. Furthermore, any order resulting in dismissal under such circumstances must be a reasoned and speaking order, evincing conscious and judicious application of mind to the factual and legal substratum of the case. It must delineate the rationale which impelled the Court to adopt such a course and withstand scrutiny on the touchstone of fairness, proportionality, and judicial propriety. Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to undertake a further appraisal of the judgment under challenge".
Cheque Bouncing | Complainant Can't Question Nexus Of Document To Transaction After Denying His Signature, Handwriting On It: Rajasthan HC
Title: Vikram Singh v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 225
While adjudicating a cheque dishonour case, Rajasthan High Court held that once the complainant disputed his/her handwriting and signatures on a particular exhibit, such denial disentitled him/her from contending that the document had no nexus with the transaction involved.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a petition challenging the order of the trial court that had rejected petitioner's application seeking referral of disputed documents to the FSL for examination.
“This Court is of the view that had the complainant admitted the execution of the receipt while simultaneously explaining that the same was unrelated to the transaction in question, the matter might have stood on a different footing altogether. However, once the complainant has taken a complete stand of denial regarding both handwriting and signatures appearing on Exhibit D01A, such denial, prima facie, disentitles him from subsequently raising a plea that the document bears no nexus with the transaction involved in the complaint. The appropriate course for the complainant was to clarify in his testimony itself that the receipt in question had no concern with the transaction forming subject matter of the complaint".
33 Years On Rajasthan High Court Acquits Man Of Attempt To Murder; Says Grievous Injuries, Dangerous Weapon Insufficient Without Intention
Title: Puran Singh v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 226
While setting aside a 1993 order convicting a man for attempt to murder, Rajasthan High Court held that the fact of grievous or repeated injuries using a dangerous weapon, would not by itself attract such conviction without the ingredient of intention or knowledge to commit the offence.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali opined that the courts had to carefully segregate whether the assault was the result of a deliberate homicidal design, or a sudden quarrel, temporary provocation, emotional instability or loss of self-control.
"It is well settled that the nature of weapon used, the part of body chosen for assault, the severity of injuries inflicted, antecedent animosity, motive, surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused before and after the occurrence are all relevant considerations in determining the existence of the requisite intention. However, the mere fact that grievous injuries were caused or that a dangerous weapon was used would not, ipso facto, attract Section 307 IPC unless the prosecution further succeeds in establishing the indispensable ingredient of intention or knowledge to commit murder.The distinction between an offence under Section 307 IPC and offences relating to voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt is often subtle yet legally profound. While grievous or repeated injuries may constitute an aggravating circumstance, the same cannot substitute the indispensable mental element required for constituting an offence of attempt to murder. Courts are therefore required to carefully discern whether the assault was actuated by a deliberate homicidal design or whether it emerged out of a sudden quarrel, temporary provocation, emotional instability or loss of self-control"
Workmen's Compensation Act | Taking Deceased To Hospital On Humanitarian Ground Not Enough To Assume Employment Relationship: Rajasthan HC
Title: United India Insurance Co. v Shanti Devi & Ors., and other connected petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 227
Rajasthan High Court set aside a claim granted in favour of a deceased man's family under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and held that taking deceased to the hospital on humanitarian grounds was not sufficient to establish employer-employee relationship in absence of any documents.
The bench of Justice Ravi Chirania opined that in a society, many a times people extended their help to those in need around them, on humanitarian grounds, however, those acts could not become the basis to assume employer-employee relationship.
In the society, many a times people extend their support and help to the people in need around them on humanitarian grounds, however, those acts cannot be the basis to assume relationship of employer and employee. This Court, after considering the complete evidence of the above three witnesses and findings as recorded by learned Commissioner, for deciding the two substantial questions of a law as raised, has reached to the definite conclusion that the learned Commissioner committed an error in law while passing the impugned judgment in disregard of the fact that the respondent No. 1 and the other two witnesses have completely failed to satisfy the first basic requirement to claim compensation under the Act of 1923, which is to establish the proof of the employment of the injured/deceased with the employer".
Can't Brush Aside Allegation: Rajasthan High Court Upholds FIR Against Forest Officer Accused Of Using Dummy Candidate In Recruitment Exam
Title: Pramila v State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 228
Refusing to quash an FIR against a forest officer accused of using a dummy candidate in the recruitment exam, the Rajasthan High Court held that offences pertaining to manipulation of a public examination process could not be lightly brushed aside at the threshold.
The bench of Justice Farjand Ali was hearing a quashing petition in which the allegations against a serving Forest Guard was that a dummy candidate had appeared in her place in the relevant examination, and that led to her unlawful selection at the post.
"The allegations pertain to manipulation of a public examination process conducted by a constitutional recruitment body, which strikes at the very foundation of transparency, fairness and institutional integrity governing public employment. Offences of such nature cannot be lightly brushed aside at the threshold, particularly when the investigation is being conducted by a specialized agency and material collected during enquiry prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences. The defence sought to be projected by the petitioner, namely that the alleged dummy candidate was intended to appear for her sister and not for the petitioner herself, constitutes a matter of factual adjudication requiring appreciation of evidence, which cannot appropriately be undertaken by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. At this stage, this Court is only required to ascertain whether the allegations and material collected during investigation disclose commission of cognizable offences warranting continuation of investigation".
Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo-Motu Cognizance Of Reports On Encroachment, Pollution Caused To Udaipur's Lakes And Water Bodies
Title: In Re: Protection and Conservation of Lakes and Water Bodies in Udaipur.
Rajasthan High Court takes suo motu cognizance of the issues pertaining to lakes, canals and other water bodies in Udaipur, including alleged increased urbanization, unregulated developments, encroachment, pollution, sewage discharge, alternation of natural drainage channels and inadequate maintenance of water infrastructure.
The court took note of various news reports highlighting issues relating to alleged encroachments upon lake areas, unresolved disputes concerning lake boundaries, degradation of water bodies, structural deficiencies in canal infrastructure, developmental activities in proximity to ecologically sensitive areas and concerns regarding the overall management and preservation of urban water resources.
Candidate Deprived Of Public Employment Over Lodging Of FIR Despite Negative Final Report Violates Article 14: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Lal Chand v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 229
Rajasthan High Court held that depriving a candidate of public employment merely due to registration of FIR that resulted in negative report, was not only arbitrary but also punished a candidate for no fault of his.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that such a proposition placed a citizen's career at the mercy of someone who chose to file a false complaint.
“The mere registration of an FIR is not proof of involvement; it is, at best, an allegation, and an allegation that has been negatived on investigation carries no legal consequence against the person so accused. To hold otherwise would mean that any candidate could be deprived of public employment simply because a disgruntled relative or adversary chose to lodge a false complaint, a proposition that would place a citizen's career at the mercy of the malice of others and reward the very act of false implication.”
State Cannot Profit From Its Own Failure To Maintain Service Records: Rajasthan High Court Orders Release Of Retiral Dues, ₹50K Cost
Title: Shri Shanti Lal Dholi v The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 230
The Rajasthan High Court slammed the State for non-release of pensionary dues to the petitioner who retired in 2023, on account of non-completion of the service book, terming it as “inexcusable administrative inaction”.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga observed that the service book had to be maintained and updated by the employer i.e. the State. Hence, it was manifestly unjust to allow the State to profit from their own default by withholding the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.
The Court directed the release of the dues within 60 days, and in case of failure, have directed that the salaries of the concerned District Collector be withheld. Furthermore, a cost of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on the State, to be recovered from the salary of the officer who shall be found responsible for failure to complete the service book.
Contractual Employees Can't Be Replaced By Another Set Of Contractual Employees: Rajasthan High Court Grants Relief To Vocational Trainers
Title: Govind Ram Yadav & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors., and other connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 231
Rajasthan High Court granted relief to the petitioners who were serving as vocational trainers for several years, and were deployed through third party agencies i.e. vocational training providers (VTPs). The services of the petitioners were terminated after the State terminated the contract with the VTPs.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain directed the State to engage the petitioners directly through a contract and pay them honorarium directly through the bank transfer mechanism.
The Court opined that it was settled in many cases that a set of contractual employees, whether engaged directly or indirectly, could not be replaced by another set of contractual employees, unless the service was replaced by a regularly selected candidate.
Terms In Past Advertisement Does Not Create Vested Right For Candidates To Insist On Same In Future Public Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Nitin Kumar Jhalani & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 232
Rajasthan High Court held that inclusion of a particular condition in past year's advertisement for public recruitment did not create any vested right in favour of candidate to insist upon identical conditions in the future recruitments too.
The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that every recruitment process was an independent exercise and the employer was competent to modify or clarify eligibility conditions in accordance with administrative requirements and statutory rules.
"The contention raised regarding the previous recruitment conducted in the year 2021 also deserves rejection. Merely because a particular stipulation may not have been incorporated in an earlier advertisement does not create any vested right in favour of candidates to insist upon identical conditions in future recruitments. Every recruitment process constitutes an independent exercise and the employer is competent to modify or clarify eligibility conditions in accordance with administrative requirements and statutory rules.
Wife Continuing Dowry Case After Taking ₹20 Lakh Alimony & Mutual Divorce Is Abuse Of Law: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Satyapal Sharma & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Raj) 233
The Rajasthan High Court held that continuation of proceedings against ex-husband and his family by the ex-wife even after receiving a lumpsum amount of Rs. 20 lakhs as alimony and procuring a decree of mutual divorce, amounted to abuse of the process of law.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that the matter indicated a reverse trend wherein the complainant-wife, despite having compromised the dispute and attaining divorce & alimony, was continuing prosecution so that the petitioners were compelled to suffer the protracted proceedings and incurring continued expenses.
The Court rejected the complainant's argument that criminal proceedings were independent of the divorce proceedings, and opined that in the present circumstances her conduct clearly indicated that the criminal proceedings were filed only to harass the petitioners.
Court Does Not Become 'Functus Officio' After Directing Probe Under S.156(3) CrPC, Must Call For Progress Reports: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Sumann Mundhara v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 234
Rajasthan High Court held that once the direction for investigation was issued by the Criminal Court in terms of Section 156(3), CrPC, it does not become functus officio, but remained under an obligation to call for progress reports in case it found that the investigation was not completed within a reasonable time.
The bench of Justice Rekha Borana observed that the Court had noticed many cases in which the proceedings remained pending before the Trial Court for years while repeated dates were fixed mechanically calling upon the effective status/progress report from the investigation agency.
"This Court has come across several writ petitions been filed only on account of non-compliance of directions issued by the Magistrate for conducting investigation in pursuance to order passed under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C [175(3), BNSS]. It has been witnessed that in all such matters, despite specific direction of the Magistrate to carry out the investigation and file a conclusive report, neither is the investigation concluded within a reasonable period nor are the progress reports been filed for a long period. This Court has noticed that in many of such cases, the proceedings remain pending before the Trial Court for years while mechanically fixing repeated dates calling upon the effective status/progress report from the investigating agency. As a consequence, litigants approach this Court in extra-ordinary jurisdiction calling for implementation of orders which otherwise fall within the supervisory domain of the concerned Criminal Court.
SC/ST Act | Cognizance, Charge-Framing Orders Are Appealable U/S 14A, Can't Be Challenged Directly U/S 482 CrPC: Rajasthan HC
Title: Sandeep Kumar Arora v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 235
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition challenging order of cognizance and framing charges under the SC/ST Act, 1989 (“the Act”) opining that these orders were appealable under Section 14A of the Act.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the order of taking cognizance and order of framing charges were not interlocutory in nature, and as per Section 14A of the Act, an appeal lied against any judgment, sentence, or order not being interlocutory.
The Court observed that since the statute provided for filing an appeal, a person could not be allowed to bypass the jurisdiction of the appellate authority by filing a petition under Section 482, CrPC.
Civil Services Candidates Require Impeccable Character; Acquittal On Benefit Of Doubt Not Automatic Clean Chit: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Sarita Meena v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 236
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the rejection of petitioner's candidature for Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services, in light of 2 (two) criminal cases against her alleging extortion after impersonating as public servant, that resulted in acquittal based on benefit of doubt.
While agreeing that a person could not be denied public employment only on the ground of pending petty criminal case or acquittal in such a case, the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain opined that the suitability of an individual had to be examined considering overall facts and circumstances of each case.
Rajasthan HC Permits Medical Care To Asaram In Jail Granted In Earlier Orders; Rejects Plea For Temperature-Controlled Ward, Pvt Ambulance
Title: Asharam v State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 237
Rajasthan High Court has directed that all the facilities, accommodations, permissions and medical arrangements that were made available to the rape convict, Asaram, by the earlier orders of high court and Supreme Court, shall continue to remain operative in the same manner, after his appeal against conviction was dismissed by court.
Asaram had moved the high court seeking restoration of certain facilities and accommodations which had earlier been extended to him pursuant to orders passed by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court, having regard to his age and medical condition so also for seeking some additional facilities. He claimed that after completion of criminal appeal, wherein high court had last month upheld his conviction and life sentence for sexually harassing and raping a minor in his Jodhpur Ashram in 2013, the facilities had been withdrawn.
The bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit referred to various orders of the high court and Supreme Court and noted that the facilities and accommodations extended to petitioner were not founded upon considerations of any status or privilege, but upon judicial assessment of his age, medical condition and requirements of treatment on the basis of material placed before the Courts from time to time.
Title: Virendra Singh v Bhupendra Singh & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 238
Rajasthan High Court expressed astonishment over the ex-parte order passed by the Board of Revenue, directing trial court to implead the concerned party without there being any prayer for the same terming it “gross abuse of the process of law” and “violative of judicial propriety”.
While setting aside and remanding the order to the Board of Revenue, the bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit, without commenting anything on the modus operandi of the concerned bench, directed the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Ajmer, to assign the matter to some other bench.
"This Court is of considered opinion that a grave error of law has been committed by learned Board of Revenue while passing impugned order. The manner in which impugned order has been passed, whereby revision petition has been allowed at the admission stage and an order is set aside without issuing notice to opposite / affected party, without granting any opportunity of hearing that too, in a revision petition filed by a person who is not a party to proceedings and without first deciding application for condonation of delay, is against settled and basic tenates of law. It is also quite astonishing to note that order impugned has been passed beyond the prayer made in revision petition and straightaway directions were issued to learned Trial Court to implead Respondent No. 1 as party respondent despite there being no such impleadment application pending before learned Trial Court. This Court is of considered opinion that order impugned amounts to a gross abuse of process of law".
'Premature': Rajasthan High Court Rejects Estranged Wife's Plea For Inclusion As Nominee In Family Pension During Lifetime Of Husband
Title: Smt. Santosh Pareek v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 239
Rajasthan High Court dismissed the petition filed by an estranged wife seeking inclusion of her name as a nominee in the pension payment order (PPO) of her husband, after noting that since the husband was still alive and thus her petition was premature.
The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain observed that the petitioner had no right to claim inclusion of her name in the PPO as nominee to receive family pension after her husband's death, till the time her husband was alive.
"The petitioner has no right to claim that her name be included in the PPO as nominee so that she may receive family pension after the death of respondent No. 5. The writ petition has been filed prematurely and the same is not maintainable, so long as respondent No.5 is alive. As and when the issue regarding family pension arises, petitioner may raise her claim and file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, but not at this stage when respondent No. 5 is alive, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed".
'No Mala Fides Shown In Order': Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Quash Clerk's Transfer From Defence Canteen Stores Dept To Head Office
Title: Chhatrapal Singh Gour v Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 240
While rejecting petition challenging the transfer, Rajasthan High Court held that any Lower Division Clerk (LDC) posted in the Canteen Stores Department (CSD), Ministry of Defence, (stores) did not mean that such person had any right to not be considered for posting at the back-end office or the administrative wing of the said store.
The division bench of Justice Uma Shanker Vyas and Justice Ashok Kumar Jain further observed that the Transfer Policy of Group C employees dated October 4, 2011, was just a guideline that could not be enforced against the State by invoking Article 226/227 of the Constitution.
"petitioner was transferred on administrative ground, and administrative ground is the choice of the employer to relocate any employee to fulfil organizational needs, manage functional requirements, or resolve any conflict relating to the workplace. Any transfer on administrative ground is not an arbitrary decision and the same can only be challenged if mala fide is proved. However, in the absence of mala fide and vindictiveness, the Court cannot interfere with an order of transfer, which has been issued purely on administrative needs and exigencies...When a transfer order is an administrative order and the petitioner has failed to prove mala fide, in particular malice in fact or malice in law, then he is not entitled to any relief under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the Tribunal has not committed any error while dismissing the O.A"
31 Yrs On Rajasthan HC Grants Disability Pension To Ex-Sepoy; Says Army Didn't Conduct Medical Exam Or Disclose Disease In Discharge Order
Title: Ex Sepoy Om Prakash v the Union of India & Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 241
The Rajasthan High Court, while granting relief to an Ex-Sepoy after 31 years of his discharge in 1995 owing to a neurological disease that he developed during services, noted that no medical exam was conducted prior to his discharge and was his medical history/disease was "deliberately" not disclosed in the veteran's discharge order.
He was denied the benefit of disability/invalid pension under Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (“1961 Regulations”).
The division bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal and Justice Ravi Chirania observed that before his discharge, no Release Medical Board (RMB) was conducted, neither the medical history was filled in his discharge order. It was opined that such conduct clearly indicated malice and intention to deliberately conceal the medical reason behind his discharge.
"It is also an admitted and undisputed fact that, before issuance of the discharge order dated 01.06.1995, petitioner was not subjected to RMB, and respondents have miserably failed to furnish any explanation or justified reason for non-conducting of medical examination of petitioner through RMB prior to his discharge, more particularly when the petitioner had remained hospitalized on two previous occasions on account of suffering from the disease, RNP (Rt), and furthermore, he was admitted in the hospital a day before of his discharge from service.”
POCSO Prosecution Cannot Be Quashed Merely Because Minor Victim Refuses To Continue Case: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 242
The Rajasthan High Court set aside the order of the trial court that accepted the negative final report submitted by the police based on the consent given by the minor prosecutrix to the effect that she did not want to proceed with the proceedings against the accused persons.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that prosecution of the accused persons under POCSO could not be quashed merely on the ground that the prosecutrix had at a later stage agreed not to continue the proceedings.
“When an offence is made out against the accused irrespective of the fact that whether the prosecutrix was a consenting party or not, then certainly, the prosecution cannot be quashed merely on the ground that at a later stage the prosecutrix has agreed not to continue with the proceedings against the accused persons. Once the consent of the minor prosecutrix is immaterial for registration of offence, then such consent shall still remain immaterial for all practical purposes at all the stage.”
Deceased Victim's Legal Heirs Fall Under Ambit Of Section 2(wa) CrPC, Entitled To Continue Appeal Against Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court
Title: Smt. Shimla Sharma & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 243
Rajasthan High Court has held that legal representatives/heirs of the victim fall under the ambit of the term “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC, and thus have the right to continue prosecution against the accused in the event of the victim's death.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further observed that while many amendments were made in favour of the victim, giving them right to file appeal under section 372, CrCP against acquittal or conviction for lesser offence, legislature had forgotten to amend the proviso to Section 394, CrPC that dealt with abatement of appeals.
It said that Section 2(wa) CrPC defines 'victim' in plain and simple language as a 'person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged...'. The court said that it was clear that Section 2(wa) "thoughtfully accorded an expansive understanding to the term 'victim' and not a narrow or restricted meaning".