[2025:RJ-JP:4598] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8067/2024 Pankaj Lahoti S/o Rameshwarlal Lahoti, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of 3976, Navgarh Mandir Ke Pass, Purani Basti, Deenanath Ji Ka Rasta, Nahargarh, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP 2. Deepak Singh S/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of -344 A, Hanuman Nagar Extension, Kardhani, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Mohd. Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Judgment / Order 03/02/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition is filed by the accused petitioner with a prayer to quash and set aside the proceedings of First Information Report (FIR) No. 380/2024 dated 22.08.2024, registered at Police Station Chitrakoot, District Jaipur (West) for offences punishable u/S 408 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the FIR was lodged against the accused petitioner under some confusion. He also fairly stated that it is an issue of investigation whether the petitioner has committed any offence or not. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to join the investigation and he may be allowed some protection. [2025:RJ-JP:4598] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-8067/2024] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused petitioner and submits that investigation on the matter is going on and on conclusion of the investigation only it will come out whether the petitioner has committed any offence or not. 4. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the averments made in the FIR. 5. Law is well settled with regard to quashing of criminal proceeding in the 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. [2025:RJ-JP:4598] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-8067/2024] (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 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.” 6. On perusal of the averments made in the FIR, it cannot be said that no offence is made out from the averments made in the FIR. 7. It is not the case of the accused petitioner that the present case is registered with malicious intention and during the course [2025:RJ-JP:4598] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-8067/2024] of arguments, learned counsel for the accused petitioner has fairly stated that it is an issue of investigation whether the petitioner has committed such an act or not. 8. As regards the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused petitioner that he is ready to join the investigation and some protection may be allowed to him so that the police may not arrest him, Section 482 of BNSS provides for filing anticipatory bail application in case any person apprehends his/her arrest and therefore the petitioner may file application for anticipatory bail and no order with regard to arrest of the accused petitioner can be passed without there being any substance in the main petition. 9. This Court finds no ground to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 11. Stay application also stands dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J GAURAV SRIVASTAVA /134