Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 46757 (RAJ)

MOHAN SINGH MEENA SON OF LATE SHRI SOORAJMAL MEENA v. SUGNI DEVI WIFE OF LATE SHRI SAHDEV

CRLMP/7486/2023 · 2025-11-28

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7486/2023 Mohan Singh Meena Son Of Late Shri Soorajmal Meena, Resident Of Meeno Ka Naya Gaon At Present Resident Of Ajmeri Gate Po- lice Station Kekri District Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sugni Devi Wife Of Late Shri Sahdev, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Meeno Ka Naya Gaon, Tehsil And Police Station Kekri District Ajmer. 2. Asharam Son Of Late Shri Sahdev, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Meeno Ka Naya Gaon, Tehsil And Police Sta- tion Kekri District Ajmer. 3. Leela Daughter Of Late Shri Sahdev, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Meeno Ka Naya Gaon, Tehsil And Police Station Kekri District Ajmer. 4. Kaali Daughter Of Late Shri Sahdev, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Meeno Ka Naya Gaon, Tehsil And Police Sta- tion Kekri District Ajmer. 5. Fori Daughter Of Late Shri Sahdev, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Meeno Ka Naya Gaon, Tehsil And Police Sta- tion Kekri District Ajmer. 6. Nathulal Raiger Son Of Not Known, The Then Patwari Meeno Ka Naya Gaon, Tehsil And Police Station Kekri Dis- trict Ajmer. At Present Patwari Kekri District Ajmer. 7. Ambika Charan Singh, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Krish- nagopal Kaleda Tehsil Kekri District Ajmer 8. Shivjiraj Sharma, Secretary Gram Panchayat Krishnagopal Kaleda Tehsil Kekri District Ajmer 9. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order (2 of 2) [CRLMP-7486/2023] 28/11/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition is lying pending before this Court in defect side for last more than two years and no steps have been taken by the counsel for the petitioner to cure the defect(s). 2. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this matter and has lost interest in pursuing this matter. 3. In view of the above, the instant criminal misc. petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 4. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to move applica- tion for revival of this criminal misc. petition, in case, any cause of action or grievance still survives. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /266