[2025:RJ-JP:1477] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8476/2024 Rajesh Kumar Son of Shri Harlal, Resident of Pratap Pura, Gadrata, Babai, Tehsil Khetri, District Neem Ka Thana (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Amit Kumar Meena Son of Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Resident of Ward No. 22, Police Station Kotwali, District Sikar, At Present Halka Patwari, Garata, Tehsil Khetri, District Neem Ka Thana (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sudesh Kasana For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Rathore-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/01/2025 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed for quashing of FIR No. 87/2024 registered at Police Station Babai, District Neem Ka Thana, for the offence under Sections 324(3) and 329(3) of BNSS, 2023. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of the premises in question and there was no Patwar Ghar in the said premises. Counsel submits that the Patwar Ghar was existing the ancestral times and since the condition of the Patwar Ghar was deteriorating, hence a decision was taken by the competent Court to demolish the same and accordingly, the entire proceedings were conducted on 05.10.2023. Counsel submits that now the new premises of Patwar Ghar is going to be constructed [2025:RJ-JP:1477] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8476/2024] and after a delay of more than ten months, the instant FIR has been registered against the petitioner with false and incorrect allegations, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. After going through the contents of 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 embark upon a probe to ascertain the genuineness and reliability of the allegations mentioned in the FIR. Certainly, it would 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. The petitioner may file a representation before the Investigating Officer. 7. The Investigating Officer is directed to consider the averments of the same and in case, he comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS. 8. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that arrest of the petitioner is required then at least fifteen days advance notice be given to the petitioner before the proceeding further. [2025:RJ-JP:1477] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8476/2024] 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. 10. The stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/129