IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). ____ OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (CRL) NO(S).10995-10996 OF 2026)
MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS., ETC. ...RESPONDENTS
[NyayVidhan note: paragraphs 1-11 carry the Court's numbers. The appeal numbers are left blank in the signed order; the Supreme Court's Latest Orders listing gives them as Crl.A. Nos. 5064-5065/2026. The record of proceedings of 14.10.2026, which follows the signed order, is given in abridged form, with the interlocutory applications and the list of counsel each on one line, and its numbered order (1-5) on one line. The digital-signature block, the stenographer's initials, Registry signatures and page numbers are left out. The order's own wording is kept as printed.]
[Source: Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 14.10.2026.]
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeals call in question the impugned order dated 18.08.2025, passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan (Bench at Jaipur), in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No(s). 3803 and 3805 of 2025.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also perused the impugned order passed by the High Court as well as the materials placed on record.
5. On a perusal of the same, we find that the impugned interim order passed by the High Court is completely uncalled for, particularly, when the civil suit no.71/2022 for specific performance, declaration with respect to the sale deeds and permanent injunction is pending consideration.
6. Though we were persuaded to go into the merits of the case, we refrain ourselves from doing so, only for the reason that the main suit as well as the quashing petition is pending consideration.
7. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the impugned interim order passed by the High Court.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the High Court stands set aside. Moreover, we request the High Court to expeditiously decide the main matter(s) based on the merits of the case, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. Furthermore, we make it clear that all the questions of law shall be kept open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings, including the question as to whether the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory can be relied upon by comparing the signature in the disputed document, which is of the year 2015, to the sample signature obtained pursuant to the registration of the F.I.R., in the year 2022.
10. In view of the above, the Appeals stand allowed, in the aforesaid terms.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………………………J.
(M.M. SUNDRESH)
………………………………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
New Delhi;
October 14, 2026.
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.3 SECTION II-D
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl)No(s).10995-10996/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-08-2025 in SBCRMP No. 3803/2025 18-08-2025 in SBCRMP No. 3805/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur]
MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS., ETC. Respondent(s)
IA No. 162993/2026 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING, IA No. 162994/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 162998/2026 - PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..)
Date : 14-10-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Kashyap, Adv. Mr. Yash Takhar, Adv. Ms. Prachi Rungta, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Prashant Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Singh Chandel, Adv. Mr. Anuraag G Rajagopalan, Adv. Mr. Nitish Dubey, Adv. Mr. Shankey Agrawal, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Divynk Panwar, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal- 3577, AOR Mr. Vibhakar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Mishra, Adv. Ms. Sumedha Singh, Adv. Mr. Ram Lal Roy- 1739, AOR Mrs. Garima Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Adv.
Upon hearing the counsel, the Court made the following ORDER: 1. Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions is granted. 2. Delay condoned. 3. Leave granted. 4. The appeals stand allowed in terms of the signed order. 5. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(Signed order is placed on the file)
Mukesh Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., etc.
The text below is reproduced from the judgment for reference. The article summarises the Court's decision; refer to the original judgment for the authoritative text.