[2025:RJ-JP:10037] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8683/2024 Sushila W/o Jagdish Regar, Resident Of 10 U 14, New Patel Nagar, District Bhilwara. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Bherulal S/o Shambhu Lal Jat, Resident Of Badi, Vijay Nagar, District Beawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Amit Kumar Sharma, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 06/03/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR No.204/2024, registered at Police Station Vijay Nagar, District Beawar for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 406 of IPC and Sections 66C & 66D of I.T. Act. 2. Heard. 3. Considered the material made available on record. 4. The law as regards the quashing of FIR has been settled 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 [2025:RJ-JP:10037] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8683/2024] 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. (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 [2025:RJ-JP:10037] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8683/2024] 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.” 5. On consideration of the facts of the case and perusal of the averments made in the FIR, at this stage it cannot be said that the averments made in the FIR does not constitute any cognizable offence. 6. One of the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the accused-petitioner has been implicated in this case based on false and fabricated facts. 7. This Court has no proper mechanism to find out the truthness of the allegations. It is only the Investigating Agency which after making a thorough investigation and collecting evidence can draw its conclusion as regards the correctness of the allegations. 8. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere in quashing the impugned FIR. 9. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 10. Stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J DIVYA SAINI /50