[2025:RJ-JP:3141] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8754/2024 Smt. Ejan Devi Wife of Late Shri Kalyan, Aged About 67 Years, Resident of Village Bhatiyani, Tehsil Nasirabadd, Police Station Nasirabadd Sadar, District Ajmer (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor. 2. Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Superintendent of Police, Ajmer (Raj.) 4. Station House Officer, Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer (Raj.) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8203/2024 1. Ramdhan Son of Shri Ram Chandra, Aged About 51 Years, Resident of Village Bhatiyani, Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer (Raj). 2. Pukhraj Son of Ramdev, Aged About 45 Years, Resident of Village Bhatiyani, Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer (Raj). 3. Mangal Son of Chhotu, Aged About 32 Years, Resident of Village Bhatiyani, Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer (Raj). 4. Ridhakaran S/o Harji, Aged About 32 Years, Resident of Village Bhatiyani, Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P. 2. Smt. Ejan Devi Wife of Late Shri Kalyan, Aged About 67 Years, Resident of Village Bhatiyani, Police Station Nasirabad, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Kasana Mr. Surendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP [2025:RJ-JP:3141] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8754/2024] JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 22/01/2025 1. Both these petitions have been preferred by the accused- petitioner as well as the complainant in the same FIR bearing No.0398/2024 registered with Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer for the offence under Sections 189(2), 303(2), 351(2) & 329(3) of B.N.S. of 2023. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.8203/2024 has been submitted by the accused for quashing of the aforesaid FIR, while S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.8754/2024 has been submitted by the complainant seeking directions for fair and impartial investigation. 2. Counsel for the accused submits that a complaint was submitted against the complainant by the accused persons wherein the complainant side was bound down. Counsel submits that in counter blast to the aforesaid complaint, instant false FIR with vague allegations have been lodged against the accused petitioner. Counsel submits that with regard to the dispute and the controversy which arose between the parties an application was submitted before the competent authority for measurement of said land but nothing has been done. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and submitted that a cognizable offence has been committed by the accused persons and the matter requires fair and impartial investigation. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record and the contents of the FIR. 5. After going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that allegations levelled in the FIR disclose that the alleged offence is cognizable and the matter requires investigation. This Court while exercising the discretionary powers contained under Section 528 of BNSS is not supposed to make a roving/fishing inquiry and to [2025:RJ-JP:3141] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8754/2024] embark upon a probe to ascertain the genuineness and reliability of the allegations mentioned in the FIR. Certainly, it would surely be a task to be undertaken by the Investigating Officer, therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation. 6. Both, the accused and the complainant may file a representation along with relevant documents in support of their contentions before the Investigating Officer. 7. The Investigating Officer is directed to consider the averments made in the representation by both sides and make a fair and impartial investigation and submit a report before the competent court in accordance with law, in case, he comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS. 8. With the aforesaid observations, both instant criminal misc. petitions stand disposed of. 9. The stay applications and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GARIMA /22-23