Dismissed¶21

Padam Chand Data v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Rajasthan HC19 Mar 2026CRLMP/1624/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR and charge-sheet; FIR No. 501/2013, P.S. Anti Corruption Bureau, Alwar; Section 13(1)(D)(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Section 120-B IPC; framing of charge; revision petition partly allowed and remand; charges reframed after remand; revision petitions Nos. 1645/2024 and 1397/2024 rejected by Co-ordinate Bench; petition rendered infructuous and dismissed; stay application dismissed; Padam Chand Data v. State of Rajasthan; CRLMP 1624/2017; Jaipur Bench.

What did the court decide?

In view of the fresh framing of charges against the petitioner and the co-accused in the subsequent proceedings, nothing survives in the instant petition for passing any orders in favour of the petitioner; under the changed circumstances the petition has become infructuous. ¶18

Padam Chand Data Vs State of Rajasthan through P P — Corruption | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1624/2017

¶3

Padam Chand Data, Son of Shri Ram Vilas Data, R/o Khairthal, District Alwar Rajasthan

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. R.K. Mathur-Sr. Advocate with
		Mr. Ayush Goyal
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP

¶9

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

19/03/2026

¶12

By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No. 501/2013 registered with the Police Station Anti Corruption Bureau, Alwar under Section 13(1)(D)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120-B IPC and a challenge has also been led to the charge-sheet arising out of the aforesaid FIR.

¶13

At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor apprised this Court that after submission of charge-sheet in the instant matter, charges were framed against the petitioner by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Alwar in Criminal Case No. 12/2017 under Section 13(1)(D) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corrpution Act read with Section 120-B IPC vide order dated 11.10.2018. Counsel submits that aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing S.B. Criminal

¶14

[CRLMP-1624/2017]

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

Revision Petition No. 2263/2018 and the same was partly allowed vide order dated 23.05.2024 and the order dated 11.10.2018 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial Court for passing a reasoned and speaking order.

¶17

Counsel submits that after remand of the matter and after hearing the arguments, again charges were framed against the petitioner and the co-accused by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act cases, Alwar and aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner as well as the co-accused Ramesh Tomar approached this Court by way of filing two different revision petitions i.e. S.B. Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 1645/2024 and 1397/2024. Counsel submits that both the revisions petitions submitted by the petitioner and the co-accused have been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.05.2025. Counsel submits that once the order of framing of charges has been passed by the Trial Court and the same has been upheld by this Court vide order dated 19.05.2022, nothing survives in the instant petition and the same is liable to be rejected on this count.

¶18

Considering the above factual aspect of the matter and after taking into count the aforesaid submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor and looking to the fact that in the subsequent proceedings, charges have been framed against the petitioner and the co-accused nothing survives in the instant petition for passing any orders in favour of the petitioner. Hence, under the changed circumstances, this petition has become infructuous.

¶19

[CRLMP-1624/2017]

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed.

¶22

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶23

Ashu/27

Padam Chand Data v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padam Chand Data v. State of Rajasthan through P P

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chusiram Meena S/O Mahadaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Puran Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Ansar Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Bishan Lal Jangid S/O Khemchand Sharma B/C Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan

Banwari Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Munesh Meena S/O Shri Bhagwan Sahay Meena Vs State of Rajasthan