HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7212/2025 Mangilal Meena Son of Shri Kalulal Meena, Resident Of Shergarh, Post Nimola, Tehsil Pipalda, District Kota ( Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. District Collector (Land Record), Bundi, District Bundi (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Godara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR No. 73/2024 registered with Police Station SOG, Jaipur for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Rajasthan Public Exams (Use of Unfair Means) Act, 1992. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the alleged incident for which the impugned FIR has been registered. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bright student and he appeared in several competitive examinations including the examination of Patwari, Animal Attendant Direct Recruitment etc. but he failed to qualify in the aforesaid examinations and still preparing for the above competitive examinations, hence under these (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7212/2025] circumstances, there is no reason or occasion available with the petitioner to commit any offence whatsoever. Inspite of all above, the Police are bent upon to apprehend the petitioner in the instant case, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the contents of FIR reveal the commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency. Counsel submits that when co-accused person was arrested, he furnished information that the marksheet was provided by the petitioner after receiving certain amount, and the aforesaid mark-sheet was found to be invalid. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, involvement of the petitioner has been found to be prima facie proved, hence interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that allegations made in the FIR are the subject matter of investigation and the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 BNSS, 2023. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a representation before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. 6. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, then he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7212/2025] 7. With the aforesaid observations, the misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/55