[2025:RJ-JP:24784] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.468/2025 1. Murliram Son Of Bhagchand, Resident Of Village Rathod, Police Station Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur. 2. Tulsiiram Son Of Bhagchand, Resident Of Village Rathod, Police Station Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur. 3. Vikas Son Of Bhagchand, Resident Of Village Rathod, Police Station Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur. 4. Suresh Chand Gurjar Son Of Lallu Lal Gurjar, Resident Of Village Rathod, Police Station Bonli, District Sawai Madhopur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent 2. Ramesh Son Of Kanshiram, Resident Of Bigga, Police Station Shri Doongargarh, District Bikaner, Presently Posted In The Office Of Assistant Mines Engineer, Sawai- Madhopur. ----Complainant/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Yadav For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Khushal Singh Rahtore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 04/07/2025 1. Petitioners have filed the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S. with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR No.172/2024 registered with Police Station-Bonli, District-Sawai Madhopur for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, Sections 4 & 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and Sections 54 & 60 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2017. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset has submitted that the FIR lodged against the petitioners is politically motivated, whereas no offence alleged in the FIR has been committed by the petitioners. [2025:RJ-JP:24784] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-468/2025] 3. This Court earlier gave the direction to learned Public Prosecutor to submit the factual report. Pursuant to the directions, factual report dated 07.04.2025 prepared by the Investigation Officer has been placed before this Court by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Bare perusal of the factual report would reveal that the Investigation Officer has observed that offence alleged against the petitioners are found to be made out. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor at the strength of aforesaid factual report has opposed the prayer made in the criminal miscellaneous petition. 6. It is a settled proposition of law that inherent power of this Court has to be exercised strongly and in exceptional matters, where on bare perusal of the contents of the FIR, no case is made out against the accused-petitioners or there is sufficient material on record to prove the FIR as malicious. 7. In the instant case although while arguing the petition, it has been stated that the FIR is politically motivated but no material whatsoever is on record to support the allegation. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court has observed in the following manner: “(102) In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Ch. 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 S. 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either [2025:RJ-JP:24784] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-468/2025] 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 S. 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of S. 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint 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 S. 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 mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” [2025:RJ-JP:24784] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-468/2025] 8. In the light of above, this Court finds no ground whatsoever to interfere in the matter. Hence, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition stands rejected. 9. Accordingly, the present petition shall stand disposed of. 10. All pending applications as well as stay application shall also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/193