Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48707 (RAJ)

SARSWATI RAO W/O JAGDISH PRASAD RAO v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMP/1504/2023 · 2025-11-19

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. 1504/2023 1. Sarswati Rao W/o Jagdish Prasad Rao, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of New Krishana Nagar, Ward No. 1, Police Station Kekari City, District Ajmer (Raj.) 2. Jagdish Prasad Rao S/o Shri Moti Lal, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of New Krishana Nagar, Ward No. 1, Police Station Kekari City, District Ajmer (Raj.) 3. Gaurav Kumar Rao S/o Jagdish Prasad Rao, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of New Krishana Nagar, Ward No. 1, Police Station Kekari City, District Ajmer (Raj.) 4. Bharti Rao W/o Gaurav Kumar Rao, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of New Krishana Nagar, Ward No. 1, Police Station Kekari City, District Ajmer (Raj.) 5. Umesh Kumar Rao S/o Jagdish Prasad Rao, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of New Krishana Nagar, Ward No. 1, Police Station Kekari City, District Ajmer (Raj.) 6. Dwarika Rao W/o Sandeep Kumar Rao, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of New Krishana Nagar, Ward No. 1, Police Station Kekari City, District Ajmer (Raj.) 7. Sandeep Kumar Rao S/o Jagdish Prasad Rao, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of New Krishana Nagar, Ward No. 1, Police Station Kekari City, District Ajmer (Raj.) 8. Mamta Rao D/o Ratan Lal Rao, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Sanjay Nagar, Subhash Nagar, Bhilwara (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor. 2. Hemant S/o Shri Shankar Lal, R/o Shastri Nagar, Ajmer Road, Kekari, Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Respondents (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1504/2023] For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/11/2025 1. This 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 petitioners to cure the defect(s). 2. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting this matter and they have 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 petitioners would be at liberty to move application for revival of this petition, in case, any cause of action or grievance still survives. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/176