HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.263/2025 1. Harimohan Son Of Shri Tunda Ram Saini, Resident Of Badawali Dhani, Panchmukhi, Police Station Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.) 2. Om Prakash Son Of Shri Tunda Ram Saini, Resident Of Badawali Dhani, Panchmukhi, Police Station Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.) 3. Rajesh Saini Son Of Shri Tunda Ram Saini, Resident Of Badawali Dhani, Panchmukhi, Police Station Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.) 4. Hajari Lal Saini Son Of Shri Tunda Ram Saini, Resident Of Badawali Dhani, Panchmukhi, Police Station Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.) 5. Rajanti Devi Wife Of Shri Om Prakash Saini, Resident Of Badawali Dhani, Panchmukhi, Police Station Baswa, District Dausa (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Rajendra Kumar Son Of Late Shri Ratan Lal, Resident Of Panditpura, Panchmukhi, Police Station Baswa, District Dausa, At Present J.J. Colony, Tigri, South, Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. KL Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/01/2025 1. The instant petition has been preferred for quashing of FIR No.258/2024 registered with Police Station Baswa, District Dausa for the offences under Sections 189(2), (2 of 3) [CRLMP-263/2025] 115(2), 126(2), 329(3), 303(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (Amended), 2015. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in counterblast to the FIR registered by the petitioners against the complainant party, the instant false case with incorrect allegations have been lodged. Counsel submits that the instant case is purely a civil dispute between the parties, which has been given criminal color to make pressure upon the petitioners, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor and perused the contents of the FIR. 5. Perusal of contents of FIR and the allegations levelled therein disclose that the alleged offence is cognizable, hence, the matter requires investigation. This Court while exercising the discretionary powers contained under Section 528 of the BNSS is not supposed to make a roving/fishing inquiry and to embark upon a probe to ascertain the correctness of the allegations levelled in the FIR. Certainly, it would be a task to be undertaken by the Investigating Officer, therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation. 6. The petitioners may file representation before the Investigating Officer. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-263/2025] 7. The Investigating Officer is directed to consider the averments of the same and in case, he comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, then he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS and in case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that the arrest of the petitioners is required, then at least 15 days advance notice would be given to the petitioners before their arrest. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/52