Rajasthan High Court
CRLMA/372/2026 of SITARAM SON OF SHRI RAMHANS GURJAR Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 17 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 372/2026 CNR: RJHC020780722026 | URN: CRLMA / 914U / 2026 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.8674/2024 Sitaram Son Of Shri Ramhans Gurjar, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Paota, Police Station Salempur,
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 372/2026
CNR: RJHC020780722026 | URN: CRLMA / 914U / 2026
in
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.8674/2024
Sitaram Son Of Shri Ramhans Gurjar, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Paota, Police Station Salempur, District Dausa (Rajasthan)
----Accused/Petitioner
Versus
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.
Smt. Kamlesh Wife Of Shri Hardev Singh Gurjar, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Paota, Police Station Salempur, District Dausa (Raj.).
----Complainant/Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr.Rajesh Kumar Parashar
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr.N.S. Dhakar, PP
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
(through Video Conferencing)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
17/08/2026
1. Matter comes up on misc. application seeking modification/correction of the order dated 15.07.2026 passed by this Court, while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.8674/2024 submitted by the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the compromise between the parties, the proceedings of the impugned F.I.R. were quashed and set-aside by this Court, but due to typographical error, offence under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was not mentioned in Para
(2 of 2) [CRLMA-372/2026] No.5 of the aforesaid order, hence, this application has been submitted.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer, but he is not in a position to controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.
5. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the order of quashing of the F.I.R. has already been passed by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2026, while allowing the aforementioned misc. petition submitted by the petitioner, it appears that on account of typographical error, the offence under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was not mentioned.
6. Application stands allowed for the reasons stated therein. The proceedings against the petitioner qua the offence under Section 125 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 also stands quashed and set-aside.
7. This order be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 15.07.2026 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.8674/2024. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J 11/Aayush Sharma