Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5684 (RAJ)

RAMAVTAR GEHLOT @ RAMAVTAR SON OF LALLURAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMP/789/2025 · 2025-08-12

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:31249] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 789/2025 Ramavtar Gehlot @ Ramavtar Son Of Lalluram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of 230 Prateek Vihar Colony, Sainthal Tiraha Dausa, District Dausa (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur ( Rajasthan). 2. Superintendent Of Police, Dausa, District Dausa ( Rajasthan). 3. Station House Officer, Kotwali, Dausa, District Dausa ( Rajasthan). 4. Pradeep Son Of Shri Failiram, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Shyam Sarovar Colony, Jaipur Road, Dausa, Tehsil And District Dausa ( Rajasthan). 5. Dinesh Son Of Kalyanshay, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Rajput Colony, Nearby Midwe, Jaipur Road, Dausa, Tehsil And District Dausa ( Rajasthan). 6. Babulal Son Of Gopal, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Pratik Vihar Colony, Opposite H.p. Gas Godam, Dausa, Tehsil And District Dausa ( Rajasthan). 7. Ramkaran Phoolwariya Son Of Devaram Phoolwariya, Resident Of Plot No. 128, Mukesh Nagar, Satya Sai College, District Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishi Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 12/08/2025 1. This misc. petition was filed by petitioner-Complainant under Section 528 BNSS, seeking direction for fair and impartial investigation in FIR No. 52/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali (Kota), District Dausa for offences under Sections 324(4), 333, 329(3), 351(2)(3) of BNS. [2025:RJ-JP:31249] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-789/2025] 2. Counsel for petitioner submits that after investigation in the impugned FIR, negative final report has been proposed and in that view, prayer made in the petition has rendered infructuous, therefore, petitioner does not want to press this petition. 3. In view of above, the present petition is dismissed as not press. 4. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/4