Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 24503 (RAJ)

GIRIRAJ PRAJAPAT SON OF GOPAL LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMP/5745/2021 · 2025-01-02

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:54] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5745/2021 Giriraj Prajapat Son of Gopal Lal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident of Village Sangavda, District Budi (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Reena Prajapat Wife of Giriraj Prajapat D/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 23 Years, Resident of Rangpur Road, Kota, At Present R/o Naresh Prajapat Son of Babu Lal Resident of Village Peepliya, District Bundi (Raj). 3. Sumitra @ Santra Prajapat Wife of Kishan Lal, Resident of Rangpur Road, Kota, District Kota (Raj). 4. Kishan Lal Prajapat Son of Panna Lal, Resident of Saheed Bhagat Singh Colony, Rangpur Road, Kota (Raj). 5. Naresh Prajapat Son of Babu Lal, Resident of Peepliya, District Bundi (Raj). 6. Babu Lal Prajapat Son of Nanda Prajapat, Government Teacher, Resident Of Peepliya, District Bundi (Raj). 7. Teena Prajapat D/o Babu Lal, Resident of Peepliya, District Bundi (Raj). 8. Santosh Prajapat Wife of Babu Lal, Resident of Peepliya, District Bundi (Raj). 9. Nitu Prajapat D/o Babu Lal, Resident of Peepliya, District Bundi (Raj). 10. Ravi @ Ganesh Prajapat Son of Kishan Lal, Resident of Saheed Bhagat Singh Colony, Rangpur Road, Kota (Raj). 11. Tina Prajapat Wife of Ravi @ Ganesh, Resident of Saheed Bhagat Singh Colony, Rangpur Road, Kota (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order [2025:RJ-JP:54] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-5745/2021] 02/01/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition is lying pending before this Court in defect side for last several years and no steps have been taken by the counsel for the petitioner to cure the defects. 2. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this matter and he has lost interest in pursuing this matter. 3. In view of the above, the criminal misc. petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. All pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. 5. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to move application for revival of this criminal misc. petition, in case, any cause of action or grievance still survives. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GARIMA /413