Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Lokesh Bhargava vs The State Of Rajasthan on 21 April, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2070/2026
@ SLP (Crl) No. 2120/2025
LOKESH BHARGAVA Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the
appellant; learned counsel for Respondent
No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 – in person.
3. This appeal is directed against the
order dated 05.12.2024 passed by the High
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
CHETAN ARORA
Date: 2026.04.22
18:04:53 IST
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at
Reason:
Jaipur (High Court) in SB Criminal
1
Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8170/2024).
4. Briefly stated, appellant had
approached the High Court being aggrieved by
order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No.
4, Jaipur Metropolitan-I whereby and where-
under cognizance has been taken against the
appellant for the offence under Section 323
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). By
the impugned order, the High Court has
dismissed the miscellaneous petition of the
appellant.
5. Vide order dated 14.02.2025, this
Court had issued notice on the related
Special Leave Petition and had stayed
further proceedings arising out of the
related FIR No. 993/2023, registered at P.S.
Shiprapath, Jaipur.
6. On appearance of the parties, this
Court, on 21.07.2025, granted time to
2
learned counsel for the parties to seek
instructions whether differences can be
sorted out so that the matter could be
resolved in terms of a settlement.
7. During the hearing today, we have
interacted with Respondent No. 2 in person
via video conferencing who submits that
because of the conduct of the appellant, who
is her own brother, a settlement may not be
possible.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the materials on record.
9. A Status Report has been submitted on
behalf of Respondent No. 1-State of
Rajasthan. In paragraph 7 of the Status
Report, it is stated that as per the
statements of the witnesses, appellant and
his father did not beat, abuse or molest
Respondent No. 2. They stated that there is
a property dispute going on between the
3
appellant, his father and Respondent No. 2.
Again, in para 15 of the Status Report, it
is stated that there is a property dispute
between the siblings and their father
resulting in frequent quarrel between the
parties. Appellant wanted to take his father
to Mumbai to stay with him which was
objected to by Respondent No. 2 which
resulted in a tussle. But there is no
harassment of any kind to the complainant –
Respondent No. 2. Para 15 of the Status
Report reads thus:
“It is submitted that an FIR No.
993/2023, dated 17.11.2023,
Police Station- Shiprapath,
Jaipur, Rajasthan, under Sections
323, 341 and 354 IPC (hereinafter
to be referred as “said FIR”) was
lodged by the Complainant/First
Informant namely Ms. Nikita
Bhargav (hereinafter to be
referred to as “Complainant”)
against Lokesh Bhargava
(Complainant’s brother) and
Kanhaiya Lal Bhargava (Father of
the complainant).
4
A copy of the FIR No. 993/2023,
dated 17.11.2023, Police Station
-Shiprapath, Jaipur, Rajasthan is
annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE R-1.”
10. Having regard to the trivial nature of
the allegation in the FIR, we are of the
considered opinion that it would be in the
interest of justice and for domestic peace
that a quietus be given to the issue as we
find from Annexure P-3 which is final report
dated 17.11.2023 that there was no
harassment of any kind on the complainant-
Respondent No. 2. Police had submitted in
the said report that no case was found under
Sections 323 or 353 IPC.
11. That being the position, FIR No.
993/2023 is quashed. Consequently, order
dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 4, Jaipur
Metropolitan-I as well as the impugned order
of the High Court dated 05.12.2024 are
5
hereby set aside and quashed.
12. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
13. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
14. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………………………..J
[UJJAL BHUYAN]
………………………………………………………………………..J
[MANMOHAN]
New Delhi;
April 21, 2026
6
ITEM NO.23 COURT NO.16 SECTION II-D
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 2070/2026
@ SLP (Crl) No. 2120/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-12-2024
in SBCRMP No. 8170/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature for
Rajasthan at Jaipur]
LOKESH BHARGAVA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 148669/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 21-04-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANFor Petitioner(s) :
Ms. Ruchi Gupta, AOR
Mr. Lokesh Dutt Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, Adv.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Singh, Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AORMiss Ritu Reniwal, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the
signed order placed on the file.
7
3. Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(CHETAN ARORA) (AVGV RAMU)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
8
