##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:18014]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 932/2026

Heera Lal Bhati S/o Sukh Ram, Aged About 65 Years, Resident Of 56-B, Meghwal Basti, Near Masuria Panch Mukhi Balaji Mandir,

Masuria, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Registrar, Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission, Jaipur.

3. The Commissioner Of Police, The Commissioner Of Police, Jodhpur.

4. Additional Commissioner Of Police, Crime And Vigilance, Jodhpur.

5. Station House Officer, Police Station Deonagar, Jodhpur.

6. Arun Lilad S/o Puna Ram, Resident Of Meghwal Basti, Rajbagh, Soorsagar, Jodhpur.

7. Bhikha Ram S/o Mohan Lal Goda, Resident Of Aamli Bera, Mandore, Jodhpur.

8. Bhera Ram S/o Tau Ra, Resident Of Mahamandir, Hemsingh Ka Katla, Imartiya Bera, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

9. Bhawani Lal S/o Bhapu Ram Meghwal, Resident Of Rammola, Gali No. 1, Outside Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur.

10. Budha Ram S/o Pura Ram Meghwal, Resident Of Hemsingh Ka Katla, Mahamandir, Jodhpur.

11. Puna Ram S/o Dhura Ram Meghwal, Resident Of Ramola, Gali No. 2, Outside Nagauri Gate, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Chandawat, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:44:39 AM)

(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 10:46:09 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:18014] (2 of 6) [CRLW-932/2026]

17/04/2026

1. The instant criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner whereby he is aggrieved by the fine imposed by the accused

persons in a self-styled Khap Panchayat.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner, a member of the Meghwal community in Jodhpur, alleged that after his son and daughter contracted inter-caste marriages, the community panchas expelled him and demanded ₹50,000/- for re- inclusion, despite earlier payment of ₹31,000/- in 2017. He filed complaints before the authorities seeking action against such ostracization and illegal demand; however, the inquiry conducted by the respondent authority concluded that no evidence of excommunication or monetary demand was found and termed the complaint false. The petitioner contends that the investigation was biased and incomplete, as material witnesses and evidence were ignored. Aggrieved by the arbitrary and unfair investigation, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate legal

action and a fair inquiry.

3. I have heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties

and perused the material available on record.

4. This Court has already dealt with the issue involved in the present case in Deepa Ram Meghwal & Ors. v. State od Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1344/2025] vide order dated 10.04.2026. For ready reference, the directions issued in the order dated 10.04.2026 are

reproduced herein below:-

(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:44:39 AM)

(Downloaded on 25/04/2026 at 10:46:09 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:18014] (3 of 6) [CRLW-932/2026]

DIRECTIONS A. General Compliance with Supreme Court Directions 21. This Court has carefully gone through the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shakti Vahini (supra) and finds itself in complete consonance with the

same.

21.1 Accordingly, it is directed that the concerned authorities, including the District Magistrates/Collectors, Superintendents of Police, Station House Officers, as well as the officials of local self-government bodies such as Panchayats and Municipalities, shall strictly adhere to and implement the preventive, remedial and punitive measures

as delineated by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

21.2 Any deviation or non-compliance with the aforesaid directions shall be viewed seriously and may invite appropriate proceedings for contempt for disobedience of

the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

B. District-Level Institutional Mechanism and Monitoring

22. In order to effectively curb and crip