Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11452 (RAJ)

AJIT S/O SHRI RAMESHWR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMP/1528/2025 · 2025-04-09

Praveer Bhatnagar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:15900] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1528/2025 Ajit S/o Shri Rameshwr, R/o Milakpur Gurjar, Bhiwadi, District Khairthal Tijara. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Mahesh S/o Patram, R/o Rampur Mewan, Khairthal, District Khairthal Tijara, Presently Motor Wahan Nirikshak, Bhiwadi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Ola For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 09/04/2025 The present criminal misc petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the FIR No. 67/2025 registered with police station Khushkheda District Bhiwadi for the offences under Sections 132, 324(4), 324(5), 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case filed under Sections 132, 324(4), 324(5), 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS. It is argued that petitioner has not committed any offence and there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. It is alleged that the incident took place at the fitness centre and the petitioner caused mischief by hitting the vehicle of Government servant. It is contended that petitioner did not cause any destruction of property or car of the complainant. The owner of the fitness centre [2025:RJ-JP:15900] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1528/2025] in his audio recording with the present petitioner has clearly stated that no such incident took place. In the CCTV footage also it is not clear that petitioner collided his vehicle with the complainant’s vehicle. Petitioner also did not threaten the government officials and obstructed him in his official duty. The petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, therefore the petitioner may be protected till further order. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the detailed factual report alongwith the case diary. After perusing the case diary and statement of the witnesses, the allegation mentioned in the FIR was found to be true. In the factual report prima facie police has found that offence under Sections 132, 324(4)(5), 351(2)(3) and 3(5) of BNS is made out against the present petitioner. Therefore, considering the above facts this court is not inclined to interfere in the present SB criminal misc petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /106