[2025:RJ-JP:1478] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8477/2024 Girraj S/o Shri Nathu Ram, aged about 43 Years, Resident of Devli, Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor 2. Mohan Lal S/o Ganga Ram Bairwa, Resident of Devli, Lalsot, District Dausa, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yenu Satyan for Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi Mr. Ramavtar Gupta Mr. Ayush Pathak For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S.Rathore-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this criminal misc. petition, the validity of FIR No. 511/2024 registered with Police Station Lalsot, Dausa is under challenged. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that multiple FIRs have been registered by the parties against each other. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason for lodging of the multiple FIRs is the FIR No.393/2023 registered by the petitioner against the son of the respondent under Sections 376 (2)(n) and 506 IPC and Section 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, wherein allegation of rape was levelled against him. Counsel submits that on account of the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the instant FIR has been registered in counter-blast to the FIR No.393/2023 against the complainant [2025:RJ-JP:1478] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-8477/2024] side. Hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. 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 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. The petitioner may file a representation along with relevant documents in support of his contentions 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. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. 9. The stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/130