Lokesh Bhargava vs The State Of Rajasthan on 21 April, 2026

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

SPONSORED

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 MANMOHAN

For 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, AOR

Miss 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