[2025:RJ-JP:45372] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4603/2025 1. Biram Singh S/o Gamira Singh, R/o Chainpura, Naisrabad Sadar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 2. Sohani W/o Biram, R/o Chainpura, Naisrabad Sadar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. Shivraj S/o Biram Singh, R/o Chainpura, Naisrabad Sadar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Dharmendra Singh Rawat S/o Gopi Singh Rawat, R/o Gyan Vihar Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Patni For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 12/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.301/2025 registered with Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer for the offences under Sections 318(4) & 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, for the alleged incident pertaining to the year 2016, a delayed report has been lodged after eight and a half years without any specific dates. Learned counsel submits that without mentioning the specific dates, the allegations have been levelled against the petitioners that certain amount was taken from the complainant by the accused persons for providing him a government job in the Railways. Learned counsel submits that there is no documentary evidence available on the record that the amount was paid online, [2025:RJ-JP:45372] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4603/2025] at the relevant time because of the demonetisation, the cash payments were not allowed, hence, under these circumstances, the allegations levelled against the petitioners by the complainant are not believable and the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the contents of the FIR reveals that the alleged offences are cognizable, which are required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the FIR are subject matter of the investigation and the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 5. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the Investigating Officer by way of filing a representation, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. 6. The Investigating Officer is directed to consider the averments of the same and in case, he comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, then he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/15