HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3758/2019 1. Murari Lal S/o Phool Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Pura Sikroda, Ps Kanchanpur, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur, Raj. 2. Ravindra Singh S/o Dinesh Chand, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Pura Sikroda, Ps Kanchanpur, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur, Raj. 3. Jogendra Singh S/o Dinesh Chand, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Pura Sikroda, Ps Kanchanpur, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur, Raj. 4. Dinesh Chand S/o Phool Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Pura Sikroda, Ps Kanchanpur, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur, Raj. 5. Phool Singh S/o Dhanpal Singh, Aged About 82 Years, R/o Pura Sikroda, Ps Kanchanpur, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur, Raj. 6. Sonu Singh S/o Raju Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Kil Bari, Ps Kanchanpur, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur, Raj. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp. 2. Uttam Singh S/o Babu Singh Bhati, R/o Nagla Duleh Khan, Ps Kanchanpur, Tehsil Bari, District Dholpur, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashok Yadav with Mr.Vikram Kumar Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned F.I.R. No.78/2019 (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3758/2019] registered at the Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 & 471 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence whatsoever and in spite of the above, they have been falsely implicated in the instant case, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and submits that after conducting thorough investigation from all the four corners, involvement of each of the petitioners was found to be proved during the course of investigation and charge-sheet has been submitted against them, hence, under under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the impugned F.I.R. indicates commission of a cognizable offence, however, the correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioners cannot be adjudicated by this Court while invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but obviously, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer and in the instant case, after thorough investigation from all the four corners and after finding prima facie case and involvement of the petitioners, the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the competent Court of law. 4. The petitioners can take all the objections/grounds/defence which have been taken in the instant petition at the appropriate stage of the trial. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3758/2019] 5. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /4