[2025:RJ-JP:21620] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3029/2025 Udal Singh S/o Shri Niranjan Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o House No. 1, Parashvnath Nagar, Borkhera, Kota. Presently Working As Agriculture Research Officer (Agro), Office Of Deputy Director, Agriculture (Extension), Zila Parishad, Kota. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. …...Respondent 2. Shri Ramesh Chand Chandak S/o Shri Ramgopal Chandak, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Village Itunda, Tehsil Jahajpura, District Bhilwara, Presently Posted As Joint Director, Agriculture (Extension), Zila Parishad, Kota Police Station Narayapura, Kota. Complainant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma with Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 22/05/2025 1. The present petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No.0267/2024 dated 06.06.2024 registered at Police Station Nayapura, Kota City for the offence under Sections 420, 409 of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR is lodged at belated stage by one senior officer with malice intention. It is further submitted that allegations of committing embezzlement with government money and thereafter transferring the same into petitioners’ and petitioners’ family accounts are baseless and fabricated. 3. Further, it is submitted that no misappropriation of government fund was made by the petitioner and the said amount [2025:RJ-JP:21620] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3029/2025] was transferred in the petitioner and petitioners' family bank with malafide intention and oblique motive in which petitioner has no role to play. Moreover, the said fact was also brought to the knowledge of the higher officials. Therefore, impugned FIR is lodged with false and fabricated story. 4. Furthermore, it is submitted that on akin charges and allegations, the department has already initiated a disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by serving a charge-sheet. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard and Considered. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court has noted that the impugned FIR is lodged by the Senior Government Official, who after concluding the investigation, implicated the petitioner for committing fraud, forgery and embezzlement with government money; that the petitioner has admitted the receipt of money into his and his family bank accounts, howsoever, the same was brought to the knowledge of the concerned authorities vide U.O note dated 05.04.2022 (Annexure-7). 8. Taking note of the aforementioned, it is opined that matters involves disputes questions of fact and allegations leveled against the petitioner are serious in nature, therefore, the question whether the said act is committed malafidely or bonafidely is subject to investigation. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the present petition. [2025:RJ-JP:21620] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3029/2025] 9. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/55