Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19981 (RAJ)

GORDHAN S/O SH. NARAYAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMP/3191/2025 · 2025-07-09

Sameer Jain

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:25297] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3191/2025 1. Gordhan S/o Sh. Narayan, 2. Vishal S/o Sh. Gordhan, 3. Manoj S/o Sh. Narayan, 4. Kishan S/o Sh. Narayan, 5. Mina W/o Gordhan, 6. Rohit S/o Kailash, 7. Babulal S/o Bajranglal, All are R/o Byepass Tiraha, Near Kalpvriksha Hospital, Pilani, District Jhunjhunu (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. …..Respondent 2. Jitendra Ruthala S/o Sawarmal, R/o Khedla Road, Ward No. 17 Pilani, District Jhunjhunu (Raj). ---Complainant-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamlendra Sihag For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Govind Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 09/07/2025 The present petition is filed seeking directions for quashing of the impugned FIR No.54/2025 dated 05.03.2025 registered at Police Station Pilani District Jhunjhunu for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2) & 324(2) of BNS, 2023. Upon perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that alleged incident has occurred on 05.03.2025 qua which cross [2025:RJ-JP:25297] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-3191/2025] FIRs are lodged numbering 53/2025 and 54/2025. Further, it is noted that respective parties have alleged physical altercation on each other, thereby committing a heinous offence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are businessmen. It is further submitted that the complainant is a habitual offender, in support of the same, attention of this Court is drawn on various FIRs including FIRs lodged by the petitioner and FIRs lodged against him. It is further submitted that the petitioners have prayed for fair and expeditious investigation under the supervision of Superintendent of Police. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have not opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the facts and circumstances, this Court deems it apposite to direct Superintendent of Police of the concerned jurisdiction to supervise the investigation till filing of conclusion of the investigation. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/68