Allowed

Rajendra Sharma S/O Radheyshyam Sharma, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2026CRLMP/614/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its revisional powers under Section 528 of the Family Courts Act 2023 to quash an interim order placed in dispute by the petitioner. The court observed that while a mini-trial is impermissible under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the impugned interim order is non-mandatory, and the petitioner voluntarily initiated proceedings with fresh evidence to disprove allegations.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; the interim order quashing proceedings was restored.

Rajendra Sharma S/O Radheyshyam Sharma, Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:13616]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 614/2026

¶4

Rajendra Sharma S/o Radheyshyam Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 64, Jain Vihar, Bohra Ki Dhani, Ajmer Road, Heerapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 302024.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

Gaurav Meena S/o Mr. Rakesh Kumar Meena, R/o House No. 93, New Power House Road, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Presently Residing At Flat No. 237, D Ram Tirath Marg, Devi Properties, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivam Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Amit Jindal, Adv. Mr. Shrey Pradhan, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

01/04/2026

¶14

1- ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 528 Hkkjrh; ukxfjd lqj{kk lafgrk] 2023 ds rgr ifjoknh&izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls iqfyl Fkkuk&HkkadjksVk] t;iqj esa iathc) djok;h x;h izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 07@2026 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 115¼2½] 126¼2½] 3¼5½ Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk rFkk 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) ,l-lh-@,l-Vh- ,DV dks fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA

¶15

2- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dk fuosnu gS fd ?kVuk fnukad 03-01-2026 dks nksigj 1-00 cts tSu fogkj dkWyksuh] t;iqj dh crk;h gS] tcfd vfHk;qDr&izkFkhZ ds-Vh-,y- vkWVks eksckby] t;iqj esa rRle; dk;Zjr FkkA ekfld LVsV~l fjiksVZ dh izfr izLrqr djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd mijksDr

[2026:RJ-JP:13616]

[CRLMP-614/2026]

(2 of 4)

laLFkku esa le; 9-42 ,-,e- ij mlds }kjk mifLFkfr nh x;h Fkh rFkk 'kke 6-31 cts izLFkku fd;k x;k Fkk] vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa ekSds ij vfHk;qDr dh mifLFkfr laHko ugha gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ lEifRr laca/kh fookn o jaft'k dks ysdj gS ftlesa ncko cukus gsrq feF;k vk/kkjksa ij ;g fjiksVZ ntZ djk;h x;h gS] bl izdkj var esa mijksDr vk/kkjksa ij ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶20

3- fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd rFkk fo}ku vf/koDrk ifjoknh }kjk ;kfpdk dk fojks/k djrs gq, fuosnu fd;k fd ds-Vh-,y- vkWVkseksckby esa vfHk;qDr dk izos'k o izLFkku ekuk Hkh tkos rks fnuHkj mldh mifLFkr ogka jgh gks] ;g vko';d ugha gS] ds-Vh-,y- eksVj laLFkku rFkk ?kVukLFky nksuksa t;iqj esa gh gSaA ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gSa] mijksDr vkjksiksa vFkok bl ;kfpdk ds ek/;e ls vfHk;qDr }kjk fy, x;s cpko ds laca/k esa vHkh vafre fu"d"kZ ugha fn;k tk ldrk] ;g vuqla/[email protected] dk fo"k; gS] vUr esa ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA

¶21

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 gS fd og ?kVukLFky ij nks O;fDr;ksa ds chp esa fookn gksus ij [kMk gksdj ns[k jgk Fkk] rHkh vfHk;qDr jktsUnz o mlds lkFkh fodkl us vkdj mldk uke o irk iwNk] fQj uhp tkfr dk gksuk crkrs gq, ekjihV dh rFkk ikl esa [kMs vU; iq:"kksa o efgykvksa }kjk Hkh ekjihV dh x;hA

¶22

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

¶23

"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

(3 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:13616]

[CRLMP-614/2026]

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 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."

¶28

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

¶29

"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."

¶30

8- mijksDr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj Li"V gS fd vuqla/kku dh LVst ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djkus gsrq vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs le; izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr vkjksi rFkk vfHk;qDrx.k 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 gksa] ;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;qDrx.k dh vksj ls tks cpko fy;s x;s gSa] os vuqla/kku dk fo"k; gks ldrs gSa rFkk ;fn vkjksi i= izLrqr gksrk gS rks cpko lk{; ds le;

¶31

[2026:RJ-JP:13616]

¶32

[CRLMP-614/2026]

¶33

lqlaxr gks ldrs gSaA vfHk;qDrx.k }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 lqn`< vk/kkj ugha gksa] vuqla/kku izfdz;k dks jksdk tkuk vFkok ckf/kr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J

¶37

Mittal /14

Rajendra Sharma S/O Radheyshyam Sharma, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Sharma S/O Radheyshyam Sharma, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanta Prasad Son of Late Shri Pannalal, Vs Moolchand Son of Shri Radhey

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Madhu Devi and Others

Union of India Vs Jhanduram S/O Late Shri Shibbu Bairwa

M/S Amit Gems Vs M/S S.K. Jewellers

Rambabu Meena Son of Prabhulal Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Damodar Son of Prabhulal Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan