[2026:RJ-JP:9847]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4208/2025

1. Komal Jatav Daughter of Shri Vijendra, aged about 25 years, Resident of Village And Post Doravali, Tehsil Todab-

him, District Karauli (Raj).

2. Dharmendra Jatav Son of Shri Magan Lal Jatav, aged about 26 Years, Resident of Village Kheda, Tehsil Hindaun, District Karauli Raj.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.

2. Vijendar Son of Hargyan, aged about 47 years, Resident of Village And Post Doravali, Police Station and Tehsil Tod-

abhimm, District Karauli Raj..

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

07/03/2026

1. In “Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr.” reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or to give a call for boycott of Courts. Calls given by Bar Association or Bar Council for such purpose cannot require the Court to adjourn the matters. In the case of “Krishnakant Tamrakar versus the State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in (2018) 17 SCC 27, it has been held that strike by advocates is in violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same tantamount to contempt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the office bearers are liable to be removed from the office for passing resolution for strike. In view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (Supra) and Krishnakant Tamrakar (Supra), since the advocates are abstaining from work today, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits.

2. By way of this criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, the accused-petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.161/2025 registered at Police Station Todabhim, District Karauli for offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 140(3) & 87 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor places factual report dated 14.09.2025 received from the SHO, Police Station Todabhim, District Karauli. According to which, complainant of this case has submitted a written application stating therein that he does not want to pursue the present FIR. It appears from the report that victim of this case, who is aged about 25 years, was examined by the Investigating Officer under Section 180 of BNSS wherein, she has clearly stated that she went with the petitioner No.2 and wants to reside with him. It also appears from the report that presently both petitioners are residing under the same roof. The said report is taken on record.

4. Considering the material made available for perusal including report dated 14.09.2025 and the fact that present case is wholly covered by the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Singh versus State of Punjab & Anr.

reported in 2012 Cr.L.J. (SC) 4934 and in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. versus Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604, the aforesaid FIR is liable to be quashed.

5. In view of the above, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the FIR No.161/2025 registered at Police Station Todabhim, District Karauli, is quashed and set aside. Consequence to follow.

6. Stay application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /36