ASHUTOSH PARASHAR SON OF SHRI TARA CHAND SHARMA, vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN — CRLMP/4450/2023
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 13th April 2026.
CNR: RJHC020562322023
Filing Number
CRLMP/25872/2023
Filing Date
17-Jul-2023
Registration No
CRLMP/4450/2023
Registration Date
21-Jul-2023
Judge
Chandra Prakash Shrimali
Coram
Chandra Prakash Shrimali
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 482 CrPC ( 204 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL
Decision Date
13-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 18-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.ASHUTOSH PARASHAR SON OF SHRI TARA CHAND SHARMA,
Adv. AJAY SHUKLA
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN
-
2.SHRI DINESH KUMAR SON OF SHRI MUNNA LAL,
Adv. DUSHYANT GOUR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
13-Apr-2026
Chandra Prakash ShrimaliView PDF
The High Court of Rajasthan quashed FIR No. 557/2023 against Ashutosh Parashar for offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, finding the dispute was essentially civil (tenancy-related) rather than criminal, with no evidence of fraudulent intent at inception and lacking the legal ingredients required for cheating or criminal breach of trust. The court determined the FIR was a retaliatory counterblast to the petitioner's own eviction proceedings and constituted abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-Apr-2026
Chandra Prakash ShrimaliView PDF
-
02-Apr-2026
For Admission- Notice Served
-
10-Mar-2025
Ganesh Ram MeenaView PDF
-
14-Feb-2025
Ganesh Ram MeenaView PDF
-
09-Jul-2024
Sameer JainView PDF
-
17-May-2024
Praveer BhatnagarView PDF
-
01-Mar-2024
Anil Kumar UpmanView PDF
-
16-Jan-2024
Mahendar Kumar GoyalView PDF
-
08-Jan-2024
Mahendar Kumar GoyalView PDF
-
08-Dec-2023
Sameer JainView PDF
-
17-Jul-2023
Case filed
Registration No. CRLMP/4450/2023
The High Court of Rajasthan quashed FIR No. 557/2023 against Ashutosh Parashar for offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC, finding the dispute was essentially civil (tenancy-related) rather than criminal, with no evidence of fraudulent intent at inception and lacking the legal ingredients required for cheating or criminal breach of trust. The court determined the FIR was a retaliatory counterblast to the petitioner's own eviction proceedings and constituted abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts