RAMSWAROOP vs RAMMKARAN — 40/2020

Case under Criminal Penal Code Section REVISION. Disposed: Contested--Remanded on 01st April 2026.

Cr. Revision

CNR: RJAL150004552020

Case disposed

Filing Number

260/2020

Filing Date

13-10-2020

Registration No

40/2020

Registration Date

13-10-2020

Court

ADJ Rajgarh

Judge

1-ADJ Rajgarh

Decision Date

01st April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Remanded

Acts & Sections

Criminal penal code Section REVISION

Petitioner(s)

RAMSWAROOP

Adv. RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARMA (PATAN)

Respondent(s)

RAMMKARAN

Hearing History

Judge: 1-ADJ Rajgarh

01-04-2026

Disposed

16-03-2026

Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

24-02-2026

Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

06-02-2026

Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

04-12-2025

Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings

Final Orders / Judgements

01-04-2026
Order

Case 40/2020: RAMSWAROOP v. RAMMKARAN Summary: The High Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh) set aside the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order of 21-08-2020 rejecting petitioner Ramswaroop's application under Section 145 CrPC concerning disputed agricultural land. The court found the lower court committed procedural errors: it failed to properly examine the petitioner's evidence, made contradictory findings about possession of land plot 726, relied on a police report regarding a different plot (182), and dismissed the application without adequate legal basis despite the report confirming disputes existed between both parties over the land parcels in question. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case 40/2020: RAMSWAROOP v. RAMMKARAN Summary: The High Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh) set aside the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's order of 21-08-2020 rejecting petitioner Ramswaroop's application under Section 145 CrPC concerning disputed agricultural land. The court found the lower court committed procedural errors: it failed to properly examine the petitioner's evidence, made contradictory findings about possession of land plot 726, relied on a police report regarding a different plot (182), and dismissed the application without adequate legal basis despite the report confirming disputes existed between both parties over the land parcels in question. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

ADJ Rajgarh All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case