Dismissed

Harkesh Jaga S/O Prahlad Jaga, v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Apr 2026CRLMP/460/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging they tried to dispossess the complainant from his land and removed construction material. Relying on Supreme Court precedent that inherent powers cannot be used for a mini trial or assessment of defence evidence, the High Court held the FIR disclosed cognizable offences and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Harkesh Jaga S/O Prahlad Jaga, Vs the State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:15605]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 460/2026

¶4

Harkesh Jaga S/o Prahlad Jaga, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Tilak Nagar, Kotwali, District Sawai Madhopur. (Raj).

¶5

Chuttan Jaga S/o Shambhu Lal Jaga, R/o Tilak Nagar, Kotwali, District Sawai Madhopur. (Raj).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶9

Pappu Lal Kushwah S/o Kajod Mal, R/o Rampura, Kotwali, District Sawai Madhopur. (Raj).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶13

Judgment / Order

¶14

15/04/2026

¶15

1- ;kph&vfHk;qDrx.k dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 528 ch-,u-,l-,l- ds rgr ifjoknh&izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls iqfyl Fkkuk&dksrokyh lokbZek/kksiqj esa iathc) djok;h x;h izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 365@2025 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 324¼5½] 305¼a½] 189¼2½ ch-,u-,l- dks fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA

¶16

2- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kphx.k dk fuosnu gS fd Hkw[k.M la[;k 49 vfHk;qDr&;kph gjds'k }kjk [kkrsnkj ls tfj;s vuqca/k [kjhnk x;k gS] ftlds laca/k esa [kkrsnkj }kjk viuk 'kiFk i= Hkh fn;k gS] ekSds ij vfHk;qDr gjds'k dk dCtk gS rFkk Lo;a ifjoknh i{k us vukf/kd`r :i ls vfHk;qDr dks csn[ky dj uktk;t dCtk djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k ftlds laca/k esa ifjoknh i{k ds fo:) fnukad 09-10-2025 dks izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ Hkh ntZ djk;h x;h] ftlls cpus ds fy, v;kph&ifjoknh dh vksj ls

[2026:RJ-JP:15605]

[CRLMP-460/2026]

(2 of 4)

dkm.Vj CykLV ds :i esa fnukad 04-12-2025 dks dfFkr feF;k ?kVuk ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 05-12-2025 dks orZeku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ntZ djk;h gS tks iw.kZr% fujk/kkj o dkuwuh izfdz;k ds nq:i;ksx ds vuqdze esa gS] vUr esa mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶21

3- fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk ;kfpdk dk fojks/k djrs gq, tkfgj fd;k fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gSa] bl ;kfpdk ds ek/;e ls vfHk;qDr }kjk fy, x;s cpko fopkj.k dk fo"k; gS] vUr esa ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶22

4- nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksaZ ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA 5- orZeku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ifjoknh }kjk ;g vkjksi yxk;k x;k gS fd fookfnr Hkw[k.M mlds LokfeRo o vkf/kiR; dk gS] og ekSds ij fuekZ.k dk;Z dj jgk Fkk] rc vfHk;qDrx.k ekSds ij dbZ yksxksa o ts-lh-ch- e'khu vkfn dks ysdj vk;s rFkk ifjoknh dks ts-lh-ch- ls dqpyus dk iz;kl fd;k] ysfdu ifjoknh cp x;k vU;Fkk tku ls ekj nsrsA ckn esa ifjoknh ds ekSds ij iMs gq, lhesaV ds dVVs] bZaV] fxVVh vkfn dks VªsDVj&Vªksyh esa Hkjdj ys x;sA

¶23

6- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and Ors with Sanjeet Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 ds iSjk la[;k&07 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS%&

¶24

"7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held

(3 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:15605]

[CRLMP-460/2026]

by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered."

¶29

7- blh izdkj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Kamaladevi Agarwal V. State of W.B. & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 555 ds iSjk la[;k&07 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS%&

¶30

"7. This Court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken it at the face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie discolse the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction."

¶31

8- mijksDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj Li"V gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djkus gsrq vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs le; izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr vkjksi rFkk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls fy, x;s cpko o vU; lkexzh dh lR;rk] fo'oluh;rk vkfn ds laca/k esa laf{kIr tkap vFkok laf{kIr fopkj.k vuqKs; ugha gSA orZeku ekeys esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gSaA ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ U;k;ky;hu izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx djus gsrq ntZ djk;h x;h gks] ,slk Li"V ekeyk ugha gS rFkk yxk;s x;s vkjksi vius vki esa vlaHkkO; gks] ,slh fLFkfr Hkh ugha gSA vfHk;qDr }kjk tks cpko fy;s x;s gSa] os fopkj.k ds nkSjku lqlaxr gks ldrs gSaA vfHk;qDr }kjk fy, x;s cpko ek= vk/kkj ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djus gsrq vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx la;r rjhds ls o iw.kZ lko/kkuh ds lkFk visf{kr gSA lkekU; :i ls tc rd

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:15605]

[CRLMP-460/2026]

lqn`< vk/kkj ugha gksa] vuqla/kku vFkok fopkj.k dh izfdz;k dks jksdk tkuk vFkok ckf/kr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

¶36

9- mijksDr foospkukuqlkj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr djus gsrq /kkjk 528 ch-,u-,l-,l- ds rgr {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx gLrxr ekeys esa fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

¶37

10ifj.kker% ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gS] LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Hkh mDr izdkj ls vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA

¶38

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶39

Mittal /25

Harkesh Jaga S/O Prahlad Jaga, v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Harkesh Jaga S/O Prahlad Jaga, v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Gopal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilawar S/O Kanchan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajkumar Ludhani Alias Rajkumar Sharma S/O Shri Gullumal Ji, Vs State of Rajasthan

Omveer S/O Shriram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar, S/O Laduram Kumawat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhanwarlal S/O Shri Mishrilal Vs State of Rajasthan