[2025:RJ-JP:38690] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5898/2025 Sunil S/o Dalip Yadav, R/o Lakhu, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P. 2. Shishram S/o Mathura Prasad, R/o Puhaniya, Singhana, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Presently HC 41, Traffic Chirawa, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 19/09/2025 1. Accused-petitioner has filed instant petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, seeking to quash the FIR No. 233/2025 registered at Police Station Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu for offences under Sections 121(1), 121(2), 132 and 109(1) BNS, 2023. 2. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that same has been registered by Head Constable (Traffic) stating inter alia, that when he was deployed on duty near the Government Hospital Chirawa, a vehicle Bolero Camper bearing registration No. RJ-10-GA-8734 was noticed to be suspected and when he tried to intercept the vehicle, Driver made an attempt to trample the vehicle upon him, somehow he could manage to save his life by jumping to other side of road, however, the Driver trampled the vehicle over the [2025:RJ-JP:38690] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5898/2025] thigh of complainant, due to which he suffered grievous injuries. The FIR has been lodged on 03.08.2025. 3. Counsel for petitioner during course of arguments, has relied upon the few of the photographs to show the manner in which accident occurred and states that no grievous injuries have been caused to the complainant as also stated that injuries has been received only on the front toe of the leg. 4. Be that as it may, from perusal of the contents of FIR, same clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offence and it is apparent that petitioner having mens rea and intention tried to trample the vehicle to kill the Traffic Police, hence, offence under Section 109(1) of BNS, prima facie, is attracted. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the principles laid down in case of State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335], elaborately considered the scope and extent of the powers of High Court to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2021 SCC OnLine SC 315], wherein the Apex Court observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/ complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made therein. 6. Having considered the factual report, placed on record by the learned Public Prosecutor, this Court is of the view that since no prima facie case is made out to assume/ hold that petitioner has [2025:RJ-JP:38690] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5898/2025] falsely been implicated in the impugned FIR, the petitioner does not fall in any of the categories as expounded by the Apex Court in case of Choudhary Bhajan Lal (supra), to quash the impugned FIR in exercise of powers under Section 528 of the BNSS. 7. In view of above, the misc. petition is hereby dismissed. 8. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /40