SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 1785

VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
State of Rajasthan – Appellant
Versus
Parmeshwar Ramlal Joshi – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Ms. Abhinandini Sharma, Adv. Ms. Saubhagya Sundriyal, Adv. Ms. Sonali Gaur, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Mahindra Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Brijender Chahar Ld, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Purnendu Bajpai, Adv. Mr. Chitvan Singhal, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Mrinmay Bhattmewara, Adv. Mr. H.D. Thanvi, Adv. Mrs. Samprati Bhattmewara, Adv. Mr. Rajvir Singh Bhati, Adv. Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gupta, AOR Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, AOR Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Arpit Bamal, Adv.

Table of Content
1. details surrounding the respondent-complainant's allegations. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10)
2. outline of legal procedures and petitions by the complainant. (Para 11 , 12)
3. arguments concerning the fairness of the investigation. (Para 15 , 19 , 21 , 22)
4. court's review regarding the inherent power and jurisdiction. (Para 25 , 26 , 29)
5. conclusion and dismissal of further appeals. (Para 31 , 32 , 34)

JUDGMENT :

Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No(s). 2797-2798 of 2025

2. Leave granted.

4. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeals are noted hereinbelow.

6. It was inter alia alleged in the FIR that the respondent-complainant had a business of granite mining, and a lease had been sanctioned in his favour by the Mineral Department in the year 2012 for mining of granite in village Raghunathpur, Tehsil Kareda, District Bhilwara. The complainant had been doing the business of mining of minerals in Raghunathpur in the name and style of M/s. Black Mount Granite Private Limited. He was the promoter and Director of the said company.

8. The owners, Shyam Sundar Goyal and Chandrakant Shukla sold the remaining shares to accused No. 4, Mr. R

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top