[2025:RJ-JP:8705] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 126/2025 Manjeet S/o Daleep Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bhindusi, Tijara, District Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Rajkumar S/o Kamlesh Kumar, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Machhorli, Kishangarh Bas, District Bhiwadi, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 27/02/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR No. 136/2024 dated 05.06.2024 registered at Police Station Shekhpur Ahir, District Bhiwadi for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 120B of IPC and Sections 16, 19 & 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused Sukhvinder Singh. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that it is a subject matter of investigation whether the accused-petitioner is involved in commission of the offence or not as the co-accused Sukhvinder Singh who is relative of the petitioner has specifically named the petitioner and also their act. He also submits that as [2025:RJ-JP:8705] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-126/2025] many as 13 other criminal cases of similar nature are pending against the petitioner. 4. Heard. 5. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the material available on record. 6. The law as regards the quashing of an FIR has been settled in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal: 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335. The relevant paras of the said judgment which are at page Nos.305 & 306 are being reproduced as under:- "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 extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which; 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 F.l.R. 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 complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose [2025:RJ-JP:8705] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-126/2025] the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 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 mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengence 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 allegtions made in the F.I.R. 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." 7. On perusal of the averments made in the FIR, at this stage it cannot be said that the said averments do not constitute any offence and whether a person has falsely been implicated in a case on the basis of the statement of the co-accused, who was caught on the spot, is a subject matter of investigation, this Court [2025:RJ-JP:8705] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-126/2025] has no mechanism to ascertain the veracity of the allegation made in the FIR. 8. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no ground to quashing the impugned FIR. 9. Accordingly, this misc. petition is dismissed. 10. Pending application/s, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J DIVYA SAINI /111