JUMMAL KHAN SON OF SHRI JUGRU, vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN — CRLMP/11132/2022
Case under Code of Criminal Procedure Section 482. Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 12th May 2026.
CNR: RJHC021036732022
Filing Number
CRLMP/50550/2022
Filing Date
21-Dec-2022
Registration No
CRLMP/11132/2022
Registration Date
22-Dec-2022
Judge
Anoop Kumar Dhand
Coram
Anoop Kumar Dhand
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions under Section 482 CrPC ( 204 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL
Decision Date
12-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISPOSED OF
Last updated 30-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.JUMMAL KHAN SON OF SHRI JUGRU,
Adv. MOHD SHAKIR KHAN
-
2.SAMEER KHAN SON OF JUMMAL KHAN,
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF RAJASTHAN
-
2.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
-
3.COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
-
4.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
-
5.THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION MALPURA GATE,
-
6.JUBER KHAN SON OF DIN MOHAMMAD,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
12-May-2026
Anoop Kumar DhandView PDF
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed petitions by Jummal Khan and Sameer Khan seeking quashing of FIR No. 495/2022 for offenses under IPC sections 143, 341, 323, 452, 379, and 384. The court found that allegations revealed cognizable offences and a prima facie case was established by investigating officers who submitted a charge-sheet. The court declined to examine whether the petitioners were falsely booked or present at the scene, holding such factual determinations are for trial courts, not for the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The petitions were disposed, permitting petitioners to raise all defenses at trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
22-Apr-2025
Sameer JainView PDF
-
10-Mar-2023
Vinod Kumar BharwaniView PDF
-
04-Feb-2023
For Admission- Notice Not Issued
-
19-Jan-2023
Uma Shanker VyasView PDF
-
21-Dec-2022
Case filed
Registration No. CRLMP/11132/2022
The Rajasthan High Court dismissed petitions by Jummal Khan and Sameer Khan seeking quashing of FIR No. 495/2022 for offenses under IPC sections 143, 341, 323, 452, 379, and 384. The court found that allegations revealed cognizable offences and a prima facie case was established by investigating officers who submitted a charge-sheet. The court declined to examine whether the petitioners were falsely booked or present at the scene, holding such factual determinations are for trial courts, not for the High Court under Section 482 CrPC. The petitions were disposed, permitting petitioners to raise all defenses at trial. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts