Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: May 23 To May 29, 2022

Nominal Index Chandra Bhal Singh v. State Of Raj And Ors and connected matters.2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 169 Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 170 Hemraj v. State of Rajasthan 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 171 Mangal Das through LRS v. Amar Singh through LRS 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 172 Fula @ Fulchand v. State Through PP 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 173 Neha Mathur & Anr. v. Dr. Arvind Kishore with connected matter 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 174 Gourav Sharma & Anr. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 175 Judgments/ Orders of the Week 1. State Is Trustee Of All Natural Resources, Must Be Conscious To Maintain It: Rajasthan HC On Illegal Mining, Encroachment In Forests; Appoints Amicus Case Title: Chandra Bhal Singh v. State Of Raj And Ors and connected matters. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 169 The Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur has recently directed the State to ensure compliance of law and prevent illegal mining, encroachments etc. in the Forests, Wild Life Sanctuaries, Forest Reserves, Tiger Reserves, etc. situated at Ranthambore, Sariska, Nahargarh, Jhalana and other forest reserves. In a batch of writ petitions concerning the issue, the court noted that it is a very sorry state of affairs that the concerned authorities have not carried out their duties for the reasons best known to them, in spite of notification issued under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and other relevant Legislations. 2. Attempt To Get Civil Dispute Resolved By Invoking Criminal Court's Jurisdiction Amounts To Abuse of Process of Court: Rajasthan High CourtCase Title: Pradeep Kumar & Ors. v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 170 The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the attempt of a complainant to get the civil dispute resolved by resorting to invoking jurisdiction of a criminal court amounts to abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, the court noted that the real dispute between the parties is prima facie of civil nature which cannot be adjudicated by a criminal court. Justice Birendra Kumar, while allowing the petition filed by the accused and quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings arising-therein, observed, "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the material on record, this Court is of the prima facie view that real dispute between the parties is of civil nature which cannot be adjudicated by a criminal court, hence the attempt of the complainant to get the civil dispute resolved by resorting to invoking jurisdiction of a criminal court amounts to abuse of the process of the Court." 3. "No One Can Be Arrested Simply On Basis Of Assumption & Perception": Murder Accused Argues In Rajasthan High Court, Secures BailCase Title: Hemraj v. State of Rajasthan Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 171 The Rajasthan High Court has granted bail to a murder accused after hearing his counsel's arguments contending that no one can be arrested simply on the basis of assumption, presumption and perception. The appellant's counsel submitted that there is no eye-witness of the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, however no circumstances are available except hearsay evidence. Placing reliance on Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, the appellant's counsel submitted that oral evidence of any incident must be direct in nature. She added that if it relates to a fact which could be seen, then it must be the evidence of that person who says that he saw the incident. 4. Object Of Rent Control Act Is Not To Deprive Landlords Of Their Bona Fide Properties: Rajasthan High Court Case Title: Mangal Das through LRS v. Amar Singh through LRS Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 172 The Rajasthan High Court has observed that the basic object of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 1950 is to save the harassment of tenants from unscrupulous landlords. The court added that the said object may not be misconstrued to deprive the landlords of their bona fide properties for all times to come. Justice Sudesh Bansal observed, "It may be noticed that the rent control legislation was entitled to strike a reasonable balance between the landlord and tenant. At one hand where the tenant requires adequate protection against his eviction at the hands of aggressive designed greedy landlord, at the same time rights of landlord also require protection to increase the rent reasonably and to evict tenant on the grounds permissible in law. The basic object of the Rent Control Act, 1950 is to save the harassment of tenant from unscrupulous landlords. The object of the Rent Control Act, 1950 may not be misconstrued to deprive the landlords of their bona fide properties for all times to come." 5. Rajasthan High Courts Sets Aside Murder Conviction On Finding...

Rajasthan High Court Weekly Roundup: May 23 To May 29, 2022

ANIRUDH VIJAY

Tags