[2025:RJ-JP:41356] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.251/2020 1. Govind Narain Sharma S/o Bhanwar Lal, aged about 62 Years, R/o Village Todaraisingh, P.S. Todaraisingh, District Tonk. 2. Gayatri Devi W/o Shri Govind Narain Sharma, aged about 55 Years, R/o Village Todaraisingh, P.S. Todaraisingh, District Tonk. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. 2. Shri Hemant S/o Vijay Prakash, R/o Village Todaraisingh, P.S. Todaraisingh, District Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar (through VC) assisted by Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Nawab Ali Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 10/10/2025 1. In this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenge has been laid to FIR No.148/2019 registered at Police Station-Todaraisingh, District-Tonk, for alleged offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC and a request has been made to quash and set aside the same. 2. It has been submitted that earlier one Sh. Vijayprakash Sharma S/o Sh. Gokulchand Sharma lodged one complaint dated 07.09.2017 in the office of District Food Supply Officer, Tonk, Rajasthan, mentioning therein that the petitioners are possessing as many as 3 ration cards and have utilized the same for consuming the food material in order to prejudice the rights of other poor persons, who are otherwise entitled for such goods and articles. [2025:RJ-JP:41356] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-251/2020] 3. The aforesaid complaint was sent to the police authorities for making investigation. It is submitted that after thorough investigation one report dated 24.04.2018 was submitted by the S.H.O, Police Station-Todaraisingh, District-Tonk and the result of the investigation was that no offence under IPC were found, however, it was suggested that action under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, can be initiated against the petitioners. 4. It is further submitted that copy of such report was also communicated to the complainant-Sh. Vijayprakash Sharma. Thereafter, when the issue was closed by the Competent Authority, in quite malicious manner against one FIR No.148/2019 was lodged by Hemant Sharma, who is son of earlier complainant-Sh. Vijayprakash Sharma in respect of same ration cards and with the similar allegations and a prayer has been made to take action against the petitioners for committing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant in the FIR is relative of petitioner No.2-Gayatri Devi. Some civil disputes with regard to property are on going between the petitioner No.2 and the complainant, hence, only in order to pressurize the petitioners to settle such disputes in favour of the complainant, such FIR has been lodged, which is otherwise not tenable in the eye of law on account of the fact that the similar allegations have already been investigated by the police with the negative result. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can exercise its inherent [2025:RJ-JP:41356] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-251/2020] jurisdiction, where it is apparent that process of criminal law has been abused in malicious manner so as to harass and victimize the citizens only for the purpose of wreaking vengeance. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and submitted that serious offences has been committed by the petitioners by fabricating three ration cards and by causing heavy financial loss to the Government as well as other entitled persons. He submitted that earlier complaint on which the police has given negative result was not lodged by the complainant- Hemant Sharma rather it was lodged by his father- Sh.Vijayprakash Sharma, therefore, complainant-Hemant Sharma can exercise his independent right to bring to the notice of the authorities, in case, any illegality have been committed petitioners. He further submits that the allegations mentioned in FIR are under investigation, in which the police authorities has found that the offence has been committed. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the scope of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extremely limited and it cannot be exercised at the stage where the police is investigating the offences, which have been alleged in the FIR. 9. Heard and considered. 10. It has not been disputed that earlier complaint made by father of the complainant-Sh. Vijayprakash Sharma has been closed by the police authorities after thorough investigation on 24.04.2018 and information was also given to the complainant with regard to such closure. 11. Only after a few months, without there being any new cause of action and on the basis of similar facts, again the FIR has [2025:RJ-JP:41356] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-251/2020] been lodged by the complainant, who is the son of earlier complainant-Sh.Vijayprakash Sharma levelling the same allegations with regard to fabrication of ration cards and misuse thereof. 12. It has also not been denied by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner No.2 and complainant are relatives, however, he has shown his ignorance with regard to any on going property dispute between them. 13. Petitioner has also placed on record that on the basis of similar allegations one complaint was also made to the Department of petitioner No.2 for initiating proceedings under the conduct rules and accordingly one charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 was issued to the petitioner No.2, which was enquired into by the Disciplinary Authority and after conducting inquiry the charge-sheet was dropped as no misconduct whatsoever was found to be proved against the petitioner No.2. 14. 14. The facts mentioned hereinabove would make it clear that only in order to settle personal scores in quite mala fide manner, vexatious complaints/FIRs have been lodged either by the complainant or his father at different forums. Such complaint has been duly examined by the police authorities and negative result was given and simultaneously, even the departmental authorities where the petitioner No.2 is employed has also conducted inquiry and has found nothing wrong against the petitioners. 15. Under these circumstances, where there is clear cut element of malafides in the action of the complainant and it is apparent that the FIR has been lodged just to wreak vengeance [2025:RJ-JP:41356] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-251/2020] against the petitioner, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under: "(102)........ (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." 16. In the case of Salib alias Shalu alias Salim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2023 (20) SCC 194, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that this Court can exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash and set aside the FIR, which have been lodged apparently on account of mala fide and vengeance. Para 26 of the above judgment is relevant and reproduced as under: "26. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc. then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made [2025:RJ-JP:41356] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-251/2020] in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged." 17. Following the judgment of Bhajan Lal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment of P.M. Lokanath & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 301 has held that powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR can be exercised where it is found that initiation of criminal proceedings at the instance of complainant is activated by malafides, instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to spite the accused. 18. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this Court finds fit and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and to quash and set aside FIR No.148/2019 registered at Police Station- Todaraisingh, District-Tonk along with all further proceedings. 19. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands allowed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/12