[2025:RJ-JP:4849] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4567/2020 1. Smt. Rukmani Devi W/o Sh. Ramgopal, Aged About 60 Years, Mother-In-Law, R/o Inside Dharmnagar, Dhanpat Road, Bikaner. 2. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Ramgopal, Aged About 40 Years, Brother-In-Law, R/o Inside Dharmnagar, Dhanpat Road, Bikaner. 3. Smt. Anupama Swani W/o Sh. Rajkumar Swani, Aged About 32 Years, Sister-In-Law, R/o Inside Dharmnagar, Dhanpat Road, Bikaner. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent 2. Smt. Meena Swami W/o Sh. Ramkumar D/o Sh. Satyanarayan Swami, R/o Plot No. Ad-3, Karni Kutir Devi Marg, Banipark, Jaipur. ----Complainant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 04/02/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR No.104/2020 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, District Jaipur (West) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 & 354 of IPC along with all consequential proceedings therein. 2. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the averments made in the FIR. [2025:RJ-JP:4849] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4567/2020] 3. The law in regard to quashing of the FIR has already been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 48 482 of the Code which 482 we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com-plaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever [2025:RJ-JP:4849] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4567/2020] reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out the grounds in light of the law settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) so as to quash the FIR. 5. On perusal of the averments made in the FIR, it cannot be said that no offence is made out from the averments made therein. 6. Hence, this Court finds no ground to invoke inherent jurisdiction. 7. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Satyendra/33