[2025:RJ-JP:1969] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 100/2025 Subhash Chandra Samota S/o Shri Harphool Samota, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Nangal, Tehsil Sri-Madhopur, District Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor. 2. Jagdish Prasad Samota S/o Hanuman Sahay, R/o Dhani Mangaravali, Ratanpura, Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/01/2025 1. The instant misc. petition has been preferred for quashing of FIR No.0192/2023 registered with Police Station Shri-Madhopur, District Sikar for the offence under Sections 143, 341, 323, 308 & 506 of IPC. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is serving as a Naik/Mechanical Transport in the Indian Army. Counsel submits that an incident occurred with the wife of the petitioner and it was caused by the complainant-side, she was badly beaten and out-raged for which the FIR No. 0191/2023 was registered with the same Police Station under Sections 143, 341, 354, 354(b), 452 & 427 of IPC. Counsel submits that in counter blast to the aforesaid FIR lodged by the wife of the petitioner, the instant case has been registered against the entire family members of the petitioner and the petitioner has been falsely booked with the intent to jeoparadise his service. Counsel submits [2025:RJ-JP:1969] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-100/2025] that the involvement of the petitioner is also doubtful in the instant case, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. After going through the contents of the F.I.R., it appears that allegations levelled in the aforesaid F.I.R discloses that the alleged offence is cognizable and the matter requires investigation. While exercising the discretionary power contained under Section 528 of the BNSS, this Court is not supposed to make a fishing and roving enquiry to embark upon the probe in order to ascertain the genuineness and reliability of the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Certainly, it would be a task to be undertaken by the Investigating Agency, therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation. 6. The petitioner may file a representation along with relevant documents in support thereof, before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the averments made in the representation to proceed with the matter, strictly in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition as well as the stay application stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GARIMA /32