[2025:RJ-JP:13670] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1672/2025 Bhanupratap Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, R/o Village Biriyakhedi Khurd, District Jhalawar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Kanhaiya Lal Mehra S/o Sundar Lal Mehar, R/o Raipur District Jhalawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 26/03/2025 1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the F.I.R. No.20/2025 registered on 21.01.2025 at Police Station Jhalawar Sadar, District Jhalawar for the offences punishable under Sections 308(4), 111(2)(b), 352 & 353(3) of B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case has been lodged against the petitioner with false and fabricated facts. Counsel also submits that the case has been lodged by the complainant, who is the driver of Bajrang with whom the petitioner is having some dispute. 3. Heard. [2025:RJ-JP:13670] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1672/2025] 4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the averments made in the F.I.R. 5. The law with regard to quashing of an FIR, has been settled in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal: 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335. The relevant paras of the said judgment which are at page Nos.305 & 306 are being reproduced as under:- "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 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 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 F.l.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 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. [2025:RJ-JP:13670] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1672/2025] 4. Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. 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 Section 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 vengence on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the Court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegtions made in the F.I.R. or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whim or caprice." 6. After going through the averments made in the F.I.R. at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out from the averments made in the F.I.R. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged with false and fabricated facts, this Court is not provided the mechanism to ascertain [2025:RJ-JP:13670] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1672/2025] whether the allegation made in the F.I.R. are correct or false. It is the Investigating Agency, which after thorough investigation and after collecting the evidence, can draw the conclusion report whether the allegation made in the F.I.R. are true or false and, therefore, in the matters like the present one, the investigation is required to be conducted. 8. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the matter at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 10. The stay application and the pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /59