[2025:RJ-JP:22470] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2096/2025 Salman Son Of Abdul Sattar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Guru Nanak Colony, Kotwali, Bundi, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Govind Singh Parwar Son Of Shri Kosal Kishor Panwar, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Chawani Police Gumanpura, Dist.kota (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Bajaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 28/05/2025 1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the FIR No.580/2024 dated 12.12.2024 registered at Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi for offences under Sections 189(2) & 285 of BNS, Section 8-B of National Highway Act, 1956 and Section 3 of Rajasthan Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2006. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. It is also contended that there is no evidence available on record which shows involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court vide order dated 19.12.2024 has observed that in the case diary, no facts were found which shows involvement of the petitioner and other co- [2025:RJ-JP:22470] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-2096/2025] accused in damaging the sign board and thereby committing the offence under Section 3 of PDPP Act. Therefore, considering the above facts, the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report, which shows that after conducting the investigation, the involvement of the petitioner was found in the alleged offence and the report also shows that another FIR bearing No.579/2024 under Sections 189(2) and 285 of BNS is also pending against the petitioner. 4. It is a settled position of law that when there are contrary versions available on record then the Court cannot examine any of the version presented before it and cannot express any opinion as to which version is correct and which is not, meaning thereby that the Court cannot held a mini trial while deciding the petition under Section 528 of BNSS. Also, the police after investigation has found the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence, therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR) J. Arun/42