[2025:RJ-JP:44162] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7064/2025 1. Mohit Singh S/o Sh. Mahendra Singh Naruka, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Plot No. 11,new Sanganer Road, Opposite Rajta Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur- Rajasthan. 2. Rajat Singh S/o Sh. Hanuman Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 2, New Sanganer Road, Opposite Rajat Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur- Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor. 2. Mahaveer Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Sajjan Singh, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Igp Thakur Bakhtawar Singh Ka Bangla, Police Line Ke Samne, Ratanada, Jodhpur City- East, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.M.S. Raghav with Ms.Kirti Rathore Mr.Vishivas Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Kumar Gupta, PP Mr.Ashvini Garg JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned F.I.R. No.422/2025 registered with the Police Station Bagru, Jaipur (West) under Section 105 of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the allegations levelled in the instant F.I.R., the petitioners own a farm house wherein a swimming pool has also been constructed. Counsel submits that as per the allegations in the F.I.R., no [2025:RJ-JP:44162] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7064/2025] precautionary measures were adopted by the petitioner while letting out the farm house and swimming pool on rent. Counsel submits that as per the allegations in the F.I.R., the son of the complainant came in touch with the hi-tension line while using an iron stick meant for the purpose of cleaning the swimming pool. Counsel submits that looking to the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., no offence is made out against the petitioner as the wires are situated at a height much above the swimming pool. If at all, any iron stick was used by the deceased, then also the petitioners cannot be held liable for the same. 3. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Yuvraj Laxmilal Kanther & An. Vs. State of Maharashtra while deciding Criminal Appeal No.2356/2024. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. reveal the commission of a cognizable offence, which is required to be investigated by the investigating agency. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and looking to the arguments so raised by counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not going to enter in the controversy as to whether there was any negligent act on the part of the petitioner or not; or [2025:RJ-JP:44162] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7064/2025] whether the deceased has came in touch with the hi-tension line at his own negligence, these disputed questions of facts are required to be investigated by the investigating agency. 7. This Court cannot go into the merits of the matter in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., and the petitioners would be at liberty to submit an appropriate representation before the investigating agency, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. 8. If after investigation, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that any cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, he would issue 15 days notice to the petitioners prior to their arrest. 9. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /68