HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.45/2025 1. Vinesh Kumar Puniya Son Of Shri Hawa Singh Puniya, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Village Harpalu Kubdi, Post Binjawas, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj). 2. Devendra Singh Son Of Shri Bal Singh, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Vyapariyo Ka Mohalla, Bhadra, Police Station Bhadra, District Hanumangarh (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Smt. Urmila Maharishi W/o Jagdish Chand Kapoor, Aged About 82 Years, R/o House No. 2/144, Panchsheel Nagar, Opposite Samudayik Bhawan, Ajmer (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siya Ram Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this misc. petition, the FIR No.12/2024 registered with Police Station – Cyber Police Station, Jaipur (ATS/SOG) for the offences under Section 66D of the Information and Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and Sections 308(6), 318(4), 319(2), 111(4) and 204 of B.N.S.S. 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that not a single penny has been transferred in the bank account of the petitioners and the mobile in question does not belong to the petitioners, hence the petitioners have no concern whatsoever, with the alleged incident but they have been falsely booked in this case, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. (2 of 2) [CRLMP-45/2025] 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the instant case is a case of digital arrest where allegations have been levelled against the accused persons that they impersonated themselves as Police Officers and by threatening the complainant over a phone call and induced transfer a sum of Rs.80 lakhs from the account of the complainant to other accounts. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that these incidents are increasing day by day and the matter is at investigation stage, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record as well as the FIR. 5. After going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that allegations made in the aforesaid FIR. are the subject matter of investigation and the same cannot be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. This Court is not supposed to make a fishing and roving inquiry to embark upon the probe in order to ascertain the genuineness and reliability of the allegations levelled in the FIR. Certainly, this task is to be taken up by the investigating agency, therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation. 6. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. 7. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/47