NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 383 - 390]

State of Rajasthan v Bhanwar Lal Jain; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 383

S v T; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 384

R v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 385

Indusind Bank Limited v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 386

Darshita Gupta v Consortium of National Law Universities and Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 387

Kanhaiya Lal v State Election Commission & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 388

Rohitash Meena v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 389

S v A; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 390

Deepak Kumar v State of Rajasthan

Order/Judgments of the Week

Permanent Lok Adalat Has No Jurisdiction Over Service Matters: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Award Granting Benefits From 1978

Title: State of Rajasthan v Bhanwar Lal Jain

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 383

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of a Permanent Lok Adalat (PLA) in dispute relating to service benefits, opining that the jurisdiction of PLA could only be invoked for redressal of grievances that dealt with “public utility services” as defined under Section 22A(b) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (the “Act”).

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand was hearing challenge against an order passed by the PLA, Merta, Nagaur, in which the Public Heath Engineering Department was directed to grant service benefits to the respondent since the initial date of his appointment.

Financial Difficulty Alone No Ground To Transfer Matrimonial Case; Husband Can Bear Wife's Travel Expenses: Rajasthan High Court

Title: S v T

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 384

Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition by a wife, seeking transfer of divorce proceedings from Alwar to Jaipur opining that that merely because petitioner had claimed to be not financially well-off, it could not be accepted that she was unable or incapable of travelling, especially when the respondent-husband was ready to pay off her expenses for such travel.

The bench of Justice Chandra Prakash Shrimali also took note of the fact that the petitioner was not a permanent resident of Jaipur and was allegedly residing there in a live-in relationship with another man.

'Substratum Of Dispute No Longer Exists': Rajasthan High Court Quashes Rape, POCSO FIR After Marriage Between Parties

Title: R v the State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 385

The Rajasthan High Court has allowed quashing of an FIR for the offence of rape and under POCSO Act, on the ground of compromise reached between parties, taking into account the past cordial relationship between them as well as their marriage and consequentially bleak chances of successful prosecution.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upman opined that it was highly unlikely that the victim would support the case during trial, hence, continuing with the proceedings would be a futile exercise, that would unnecessarily burden the judicial system, causing wastage of time and resources of trial court.

While underscoring the principle that does not allow compromise in heinous cases, the Court observed,

“However, this principle is not absolute in the sent that the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers as per Section 482 if the CrP.C. is empowered to quash criminal proceedings based on a compromise in suitable cases…Such cases would be those in which the matter is largely personal in nature or the offence, though falling within a serious provision, is not in substance a serious offence from a social point of view. If the Court is of the opinion that the continuation of the proceedings is nothing but a mere formality and that the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak because of the compromise between the parties, and that no useful purpose is served in keeping proceedings pending…it may exercise its discretion to quash…”

'Muscle Power' Can't Override Law: Rajasthan High Court Orders Police To Restore Bank's Possession On Property Forcibly Taken By Borrowers

Title: Indusind Bank Limited v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 386

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the police officials to take all possible endeavours to restore the possession of a mortgaged property forcibly taken over by loan defaulters from the bank, which had lawful authority over it in terms of the SARFAESI Act.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted that respondent-borrowers had used "muscle power" to take over the property and an FIR was also registered against them in this regard. However, even after passing of considerable time, no steps were taken by the police.

Rajasthan High Court Declines CLAT Candidate's Plea To Change Reservation Category After Result Declaration

Title: Darshita Gupta v Consortium of National Law Universities and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 387

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the petition filed by a CLAT 2026 candidate seeking modification of her reservation category from Unreserved General-Women to General-Rajasthan Domicile, after the first provisional list was already declared by the CLAT-Consortium.

The bench of Justice Maneesh Sharma observed that a belated correction or modification of an application form, especially change of reservation category, post expiry of the cut-off date would erode the sanctity of the admission process, and hence could not be allowed.

Rejection Of Municipal Election Nomination Can Be Challenged Only Through Election Petition: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Kanhaiya Lal v State Election Commission & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 388

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition challenging rejection of Petitioner's nomination papers for the election of Ward Member, Municipal Board Brij Nagar, District Deeg, opining that as per the bar under Article 243-ZG, no election to any municipality could be called into question except by filing an Election Petition,

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that as per Section 31, of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (“the Act”), improper rejection or acceptance of nomination paper was a ground to declare elections void, and as per the statutory bar under Article 243-ZG, the Court did not have jurisdiction to examine the petition.

Employee's Conviction For Serious Crime Doesn't Permit Automatic Pension Forfeiture; Hearing Must Be Given: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rohitash Meena v Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 389

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order of the State that stopped and forfeited petitioner's entire pension on the ground of a conviction and imprisonment under the Prevention of Corruption Act (“the Act”), in the background of the fact that no notice was serviced upon the petition before passing of the order.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma affirmed that even where conviction stood proven, petitioner had the right to put forth mitigating circumstances before the concerned authority for consideration regarding the nature and extent of penalty.

Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree After Estranged Couple Reconciles, Restores Marriage

Title: S v A

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 390

While quoting Mahabharata, Rajasthan High Court reversed a divorce decree in light of the post-facto reconciliation reached between the couple for the welfare of their minor daughter, and opined that while administering justice, the Court could not lose sight of the fact that matrimonial litigation was not merely competing legal claims but involved human relations.

The division bench of Justice Uma Shanker Vyas and Justice Sameer Jain observed that a child's welfare is best served when the parents' differences were replaced with understanding, responsibility and mutual respect. Matrimonial disputes shall not become an irreversible barrier where parties themselves found a path towards reconciliation.

“Marriage, in the Hindu mythology has never been regarded as a mere contract between two individuals; it is a sacred sacrament, a sanskara, in which two souls undertake to walk together through the journey of life…reconciliation is not a surrender to the past; it is a conscious choice to give the future another chance. Where two persons, after traversing the difficult path of discord, voluntarily choose to walk together once again, the law should, wherever permissible, facilitate that journey towards peace and restoration.”

JJ Act | Rajasthan High Court Directs 1% Reservation For Youth Leaving Care Homes, Flags 'Mechanical' Juvenile Assessments

Title: Deepak Kumar v State of Rajasthan

Taking serious note of the lapses in preliminary assessments of a minors under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice Act (“JJ Act”), the Rajasthan High Court has ordered constitution of a panel of Clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, and experts in Child psychology in each district.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand further highlighted the harsh reality faced by the “care leavers”, who grow up in Child Care Institution (CCIs) and are required to enter into the outside world without any support system, making them extremely vulnerable.

In this regard, apart from rendering other directions, the Court has ordered the Central and State Governments to notify a comprehensive policy providing 1% horizontal reservation for Care Leavers, within 12 weeks.