[2025:RJ-JP:45864] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4031/2023 Shanno @ Ajra Naaz W/o Jakir Hussain, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Kabe Ka Chowk, Brahamapuri, P.s. Kotwali, Bundi (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Salim S/o Abdul Hakeem, R/o Kagaji Devara Bundi, P.s. Kotwali, Bundi (Rajasthan). ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3059/2023 1. Islamuddin S/o Rafiq Mohammed, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kabe Ka Chowk, Brahamapuri, P.s. Kotwali, Bundi (Rajasthan). 2. Najeem Hussain S/o Rafiq Mohammed, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Kabe Ka Chowk, Brahamapuri, P.s. Kotwali, Bundi (Rajasthan). 3. Nasir Hussain S/o Rafiq Mohammed, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Kabe Ka Chowk, Brahamapuri, P.s. Kotwali, Bundi (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Salim S/o Abdul Hakeem, R/o Kagaji Devara Bundi, P.s. Kotwali, Bundi (Rajasthan). ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3694/2024 Saleem Son Of Shri Abdul Hakim, R/o Kagaji Devra Bundi Kotwali, District Bundi Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Jaipur. [2025:RJ-JP:45864] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4031/2023] 3. Superintendent Of Police, District Bundi. 4. The Circle Officer Bundi, District Bundi Rajasthan. 5. The Station House Officer Kotwali, Bundi District Bundi. 6. Islam Son Of Shri Rafeek, R/o Kabe Ka Couk, Brahmpuri, Bundi Rajasthan. 7. Najeem Son Of Rafeek, R/o Kabe Ka Couk, Brahmpuri, Bundi Rajasthan. 8. Nasir Son Of Rafeek, R/o Kabe Ka Couk, Brahmpuri, Bundi Rajasthan. 9. Shanno W/o Of Jakir, R/o Kabe Ka Couk, Brahmpuri, Bundi Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Carn Bhatnagar For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP Mr.Mohd. Shakir Khan JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/11/2025 1. The S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos. 4031/2023 and 3059/2023 have been submitted by the accused-petitioners for quashing of the F.I.R. No.68/2023 registered with Police Station Kotwali Bundi, District Bundi under Sections 342, 365, 306 & 34 of IPC. While S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3694/2024 has been submitted by the complainant-petitioner seeking directions against the Investigating Agency for conducting fair and impartial investigation of the impugned F.I.R. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that as per the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the deceased had borrowed certain amount from the accused-petitioners and they took him to their residence and forced him to return the amount. [2025:RJ-JP:45864] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4031/2023] Counsel submits that a sum of Rs.70,000/- was returned and the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- was not returned and the deceased sought more time to return the aforesaid amount. Counsel submits that the deceased has committed suicide by consuming poison, and there is no evidence against the petitioners indicating that they tortured, harassed, abducted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide, hence, under these circumstances, the allegation of the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC does not arise. Counsel submits that as per the allegations, the accused-persons committed assault on the deceased, however, he has not sustained any injuries indicating such assault. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, no case is made out against the accused-petitioners, hence, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed. 3. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the accused-petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Manish Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1994 (2) WLC 69 and Ajit Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in (2009) 10 AD (Delhi) 720. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the accused-petitioners and submits that as per the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the accused-persons have abducted the deceased and forcefully taken him to their residence where they raised demand against the deceased to return the borrowed amount. Counsel submits that the deceased has committed suicide by consuming poison at the residence of the [2025:RJ-JP:45864] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4031/2023] accused-petitioners and he has died under unnatural circumstances. Counsel submits that the contents of the F.I.R. reveals commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petitions filed by the accused-petitioners are liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. While exercising the inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court cannot adjudicate the correctness of the allegations levelled against the accused-persons. This Court cannot record a finding of fact as to whether at all any offence has been committed by the accused-persons or not. If the contents of the F.I.R. reveals commission of a cognizable offence, the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no force in Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4031/2023 and 3059/2023. Accordingly, the same are hereby rejected. 7. Looking to the factual report furnished by the Public Prosecutor received from the S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali Bundi, the investigation has been completed and a case has been found to be proved against the accused-petitioners, and the Police is in the process of filing the charge-sheet, but the same could not be submitted because of the interim order passed by this Court. 8. Considering the above, this Court finds no further cause of action surviving with the complainant-petitioner to continue with [2025:RJ-JP:45864] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4031/2023] the Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3694/2024 and the same stands disposed of accordingly. 9. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the observations made by this Court is purely for the disposal of the instant petitions seeking quashing of F.I.R., and the same would not affect the trial and rights of the petitioners at the time of submission of bail application or any revision or miscellaneous petition. 10. The trial Court would be at liberty to proceed with the matter strictly in accordance with law on the basis of the evidence available on record. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 12. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /3-5