AASHISH BAJAJ @ AASHU @ HARISH vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN — CRLMP/4207/2024

Case under Other Acts Section 482. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 09th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: RJHC010478312024

Filing Number

CRLMP/21462/2024

Filing Date

28-Jun-2024

Registration No

CRLMP/4207/2024

Registration Date

29-Jun-2024

Judge

Anil Kumar Upman

Coram

Anil Kumar Upman

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ( 204 )

Sub-Category

CR.MISC.PETITION - QUASHING THE FIR - IPC ( 55 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL

Decision Date

09-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 11-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Other Acts Section 482

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.AASHISH BAJAJ @ AASHU @ HARISH

    Adv. TRILOK JOSHI,NAVNEET POONIA,NAVNEET POONIA, ,SUMAN PAREEK,NAVNEET POONIA

  2. 2.LALIT BAJAJ

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN

  2. 2.NEETU DEVI AMARMANI

    Adv. NAMAN MOHNOT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Anil Kumar Upman

  3. 04-Jul-2024

    Arun MongaView PDF

    The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur issued an interim order granting protection to petitioners Aashish and Lalit Bajaj in a criminal petition against charges related to real estate investments. The court found the petitioners' argument credible that they acted in advisory capacity, funds were used to purchase properties in the complainant's name per her instructions with sale-deeds in her possession, and the FIR was filed due to property price disappointment rather than actual misappropriation. The court accordingly directed no coercive action against the petitioners pending notice to the complainant and final hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 28-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRLMP/4207/2024

casestatus.in Summary

The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur issued an interim order granting protection to petitioners Aashish and Lalit Bajaj in a criminal petition against charges related to real estate investments. The court found the petitioners' argument credible that they acted in advisory capacity, funds were used to purchase properties in the complainant's name per her instructions with sale-deeds in her possession, and the FIR was filed due to property price disappointment rather than actual misappropriation. The court accordingly directed no coercive action against the petitioners pending notice to the complainant and final hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case