HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.121/2025 1. Laxman Meena S/o Phoolchand Meena, R/o C-65, Moti Vihar, Chak Getor, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur. 2. Rampratap Meena S/o Phoolchand Meena, R/o C-54, Moti Vihar, Chak Getor, Pratap Nagar, Sector -11 Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Sapna Jain W/o Ramesh Kumar Jain, R/o 163/177, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Chhavi Chaturvedi Mr. K.K. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 15/01/2025 1. The instant petition has been preferred for quashing of the FIR No.674/2021 registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur City (East) under Sections 306, 120-B and 384 IPC. Learned counsel submits that the date of alleged incident is 26.06.2021 while the FIR has been registered after a delay of more than four months. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have no concern whatsoever with the alleged incident in fact the deceased was running the business of Bajri with the co-accused Radha Mohan and borrowed a sum of Rs.7 lakhs. Learned counsel submits that when the said Radha Mohan asked the deceased to return the same, dispute arose between them and he committed (2 of 3) [CRLMP-121/2025] suicide. Learned counsel submits that even no suicide note has been recovered by the Police even then the petitioners have been falsely booked in this case, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 2. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that before committing suicide a letter was written by the deceased wherein certain allegations have been levelled against accused persons. Learned counsel submits that, at this stage, only contents of FIR is required to be seen and the correctness of the allegations is not required to be seen, hence interference of this Court is not warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. After going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that allegations made in the aforesaid FIR are the subject matter of investigation and the same cannot be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. This Court is not supposed to make a fishing and roving inquiry to embark upon the probe in order to ascertain the genuineness and reliability of the allegations levelled in the FIR. Certainly, this task is to be taken up by the Investigating Agency, therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation. 5. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a representation before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. 6. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, he (3 of 3) [CRLMP-121/2025] shall issue a notice to the petitioners as required under Section 35 of the BNSS. 7. In view of the above, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all other application(s), pending, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/33