[2025:RJ-JP:19170] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2443/2025 Bashir Son Of Shri Rama, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Rajosi, Police Station Sadar Nasirabad, Tehsil Nasirabad District Ajmer ( Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Gheesa Son Of Shri Dilawar, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Nadi Ka Badiya, ( Rajosi), Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhusudan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. S. Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 07/05/2025 1. The present petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 173/2025 registered at Police Station Nasirabad Sadar District Ajmer for offences under Sections 140(1) ad 103(1) of BNS. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the disability certificate of the petitioner wherein it is stated that the petitioner is 70% permanently disabled. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot stand on his own legs without the support of crutches. Therefore, it can be deduced that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the instant matter as the [2025:RJ-JP:19170] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-2443/2025] petitioner is working as a regular social informer who had on erstwhile occasions filed complaint against the police authorities. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the in the contents of the FIR it is specifically alleged that the petitioner was involved in the said offence, which is per se heinous in nature. It is submitted that there is recovery of clothes on the basis of statements tendered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation whilst taking note of the oral submissions and evidences a mobile phone was recovered, wherein the search history reflects searches like “how to kill a person”. 4. Heard and considered. 5. Considering the foregoing facts of the case, and taking note of the over-all factual matrix of the matter, it is opined that there are disputed questions of facts, which are not to be discussed and addressed by this Court. Nevertheless, the same can only be addressed after conducting investigation in an impartial and expeditious manner. 6. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /52