[2025:RJ-JP:1140] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8706/2024 Pravesh Kachavaha @ Piyush Kachavaha S/o Shri Rakesh Kachavaha, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Teachers Colony, Gumanpura, Kota City, Kota (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through The Learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Shivani Kachhavaha W/o Lt. Shri Rajendra Kachhavaha, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 10Y 170, Laxmi Narayan Super Market, Teachers Colony, Gumanpura, Kota City, Kota (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Lawaniya for Mr. Jagmohan Bharadwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/01/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been made to FIR No.254/2021 registered with Police Station Gumanpura, District Kota City for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the FIR, alleged incident occurred on 09.07.2021, wherein false allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner was not even present in the city and he was travelling by train for Delhi and in support of his contentions he has placed on record the train [2025:RJ-JP:1140] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8706/2024] tickets. Counsel submits that the petitioner went to Delhi for the purpose of medical checkup, obtaining Visa, etc. to go abroad. In support of his contentions he has placed relevant documents on record. Counsel submits that when the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence, then there was no reason or occasion available with the petitioner to commit the incident with the complainant, hence, under these circumstances, a false and fabricated FIR has been registered against him, which is liable to the quashed by this Court. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor and perused the contents of FIR. 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. If at all this is a case of the petitioner regarding his plea of alibi and with regard to his absence on the place of occurrence at the relevant time when the alleged incident occurred, the petitioner is supposed to submit all these documents before the Investigating Officer. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:1140] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8706/2024] the FIR. Certainly, it would be a task to be undertaken by the Investigating Agency, therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation. 6. The petitioner may file a detail comprehensive representation along with the relevant documents in support of contentions before the Investigating Officer. 7. The Investigating Officer is directed to consider the averments made in the representation and in case, the he comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, he shall ensure 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. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/41