LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Half Yearly Digest: January - June, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 1 To 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 265Order/Judgments of Half-YearJanuary 2026Filing Of 'Negative Report' Doesn't Authorise Police To Prosecute Informant For False Case: Rajasthan High CourtTitle: Dev Narayan Gurjar v State of Rajasthan & Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 1The Rajasthan High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings against a young petitioner, initiated by the police under Section 211 IPC for filing false case, opining that such proceeding could be initiated only upon a written complaint by the Court in relation to which the offence was committed.Section 211, IPC deals with the office of initiating false criminal proceedings and falsely charging a person with an offence.The Court perused Section 195(1)(b), CrPC, and opined that if an offence was alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any Court, cognizance could not be taken unless a written complaint was filed by that Court.Hence, it was clear that prosecution under Section 211, IPC, was possible only after such written complaint was made by the Court concerned.23 Yrs On, Rajasthan High Court Upholds Reinstatement Of Govt Employee Terminated After Arrest In Cheating FIRTitle: The State of Rajasthan v Smt. Manju Berwa & Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 2The Rajasthan High Court upheld an order directing reinstatement of a woman government employee who was terminated in 2002 following her arrest in relation to a cheating FIR in which she was eventually acquitted.The division bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Anuroop Singhi was hearing a special appeal filed by the State challenging order of a single judge bench that upheld the Labour Court's decision in which the State was directed to reinstate the woman (respondent)."Upon perusal of the record and consideration of the factual matrix of the case, this Court finds no reason to take a view different from that of the learned Labour Court and the learned Single Judge. The very foundation of the termination order dated 17.10.2002 rested upon the pendency of a criminal case against respondent No.1. Once the respondent stood acquitted by a competent criminal court vide judgment dated 03.12.2011, the basis of such termination ceased to exist," the bench added.Registered Owner Not Entitled To Interim Release Of Vehicle Seized In NDPS Case If He Is Also An Accused: Rajasthan High CourtTitle: Khurshid v State of RajasthanCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 3The Rajasthan High Court has held that the registered owner of a vehicle, seized in relation to an NDPS case, is not entitled to get interim custody of the vehicle merely on the grounds of ownership if he/she himself/herself is one of the accused in the case.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand made a reference to the Supreme Court case of Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam in which the Court gave certain scenarios where the vehicle seized in an NDPS case could or could not be released.“The first two scenarios deal with the situations where supurdagi of such vehicles has not been permitted when the registered owner of the vehicle was found to be involved in commission of offences punishable under NDPS Act such as when the contraband/drugs have been recovered from the possession of the owner of the vehicle or his agent such as driver or cleaner of the vehicle.”Third Party Has No Locus To Oppose Withdrawal Of Criminal Complaint: Rajasthan High CourtTitle: Kailash Ram v State of Rajasthan & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 4The Rajasthan High Court recently rejected a petition challenging a trial court order that allowed withdrawal of a private complaint, opining that a third party who was neither the victim nor the complainant themselves, had no locus standi to revive the criminal proceedings.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand emphasized that if such practice is allowed in a casual manner, any “meddlesome bystander” could decide to attack any person by initiating a frivolous proceeding and hence, causing irretrievable injury to the life and liberty of accused person.“In Criminal Law, the State and its instrumentalities enjoy prerogatives, akin to crown prerogatives in England. The power exercised by the Public Prosecutor under S.321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is in the nature of such a prerogative. The State may advise him in this regard, but he must exercise his mind independently, and he ought not to act under dictation. If he acts honestly, his act cannot be questioned. The limited role of the court is only supervisory, and not adjudicatory or appellate in character…Every system must work on trust. The court even where it is required to act as a watchdog is not required to act like a hound.”'Prima Facie Discloses Fund Siphoning': Rajasthan High Court Refuses To Quash Cheating FIR Against Filmmaker Vikram Bhatt, OthersTitle: Gangeshwar Lal Shrivastava & Anr. v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petitionCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 5The Rajasthan High Court rejected...

LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Half Yearly Digest: January - June, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Half Yearly Digest: January - June, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers