LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 15 to June 21, 2026

NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 244 - 253]Victory Flour Mills v Smt. Sneh Lal Goyal & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 244Iqbal Khan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 245Smt. Indra Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 246Arun Singh & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 247B v N; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 248Rohit Joshi v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 249Smt. Bhanwari Devi v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 250Kanaram v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 251Satyanarayan Singh Rajpurohit v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 252Manisha Jain v State of Rajasthan, and other connected petition; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 253Order/Judgments of the WeekCan A Fresh Cheque Bounce Complaint Be Filed After Withdrawal Of A Premature Complaint? Rajasthan High Court AnswersTitle: M/s Victory Flour Mills v Smt. Sneh Lal Goyal & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 244The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 NI Act on the ground that the complaint filed in 2016 was time barred and filed without any application for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act. [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 244]The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that if an earlier complaint that was found to be premature, was withdrawn by the complainant, the subsequent complaint could not be treated as time barred. The Court further observed that since the original complaint was filed in 2016, and the present quashing petition was filed at the fag end of the trial, after recording of evidence of both the sides, it could not be entertained.Conviction Not Mandatory To Open History Sheet Against 'Habitual Offender' Under Police Rules: Rajasthan High CourtTitle: Iqbal Khan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 245The Rajasthan High Court has held that a prior conviction is not a mandatory prerequisite for opening or reopening a history sheet under the Rajasthan Police Rules, 1965, if the police have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is habitually addicted to crime. The bench of Justice Rekha Borana clarified that the expression "habitual offender" under the Police Rules cannot be imported from the Rajasthan Habitual Offenders Act, 1953, which requires three convictions, as the Rules themselves permit opening a history sheet even against a person who has not been convicted.“Rule 4.4(3)(b) does not presuppose any conviction, rather, it incorporates a specific stipulation that conviction is not mandatory. In that event, the definition of 'habitual offender' as provided under the Act of 1953 which presupposes three convictions, definitely cannot be applied to the said rule.”Widowed Jethani Living Separately Unlikely To Benefit From Alleged Dowry: Rajasthan High Court Quashes CaseTitle: Smt. Indra Devi v State of Rajasthan & Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 246The Rajasthan High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC against a woman's sister-in-law (jethani), holding that the latter being a widow and living separately from the in-laws family was unlikely to benefit from the alleged dowry or to harass the complainant (woman). The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that the sister-in-law (petitioner) had nothing to gain from the cash or articles of dowry that allegedly had to be given to the complainant's husband and parents-in-law.The Court held that ordinarily, in matrimonial disputes, the harassment was subjected by the husband or parents-in-law.“The petitioner, being sister-in-law of the complainant i.e. Jethani, has no concern whatsoever, with the domestic affairs of the complainant and her husband. She would not benefit from any demand of dowry, if any, made by the husband or in-laws with the complainant who is sister-in-law (Devrani) of the petitioner.”Can Bail Granted for Bailable Offences Be Cancelled If Graver Non‑bailable Offences Are Later Added: Rajasthan High Court DecidesTitle: Arun Singh & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 247The Rajasthan High Court has held that benefit of bail granted to an accused under bailable offences cannot continue and stands cancelled on addition of a graver, non-bailable offence.After making references to certain Supreme Court decisions including Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi & Anr. and Pradeep Ram vs. the State of Jharkhand & Anr., the Court held that,“…benefit of bail granted to the accused for bailable offences cannot be allowed to continue and the same is liable to be cancelled on addition of graver/non-bailable offence.”Rajasthan High Court Rejects Husband's Plea Seeking Wife's Narco, Polygraph & DNA Tests To Rebut Impotency AllegationsTitle: B v NCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 248The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the rejection of a husband's application seeking joint medical examination of himself and his wife, to refute the allegations of physical incapacity and impotency levelled by the wife in her...

LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 15 to June 21, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Nupur Agrawal

LiveLaw Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 15 to June 21, 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