[2025:RJ-JP:3583] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 457/2025 1. Govind S/o Shri Mahendra Sarkar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Jagpura, In Front Of Police Choki Jagpura, Police Station Ranpur, Kota City (Raj.) 2. Mannulal Banjara S/o Shri Amarlal Banjara, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Behind Subhas Children School, Jaipura, Police Station Ranpur, Kota City (Raj.) 3. Pawan S/o Shri Ratanlal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Behind Subhash Children School, Jaipura, Police Station Ranpur, Kota City (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through P.P. 2. Superintendent Of Police, District Kota City. 3. SHO, PS Ranpur, Distt. Kota City. 4. Investigation Officer in the FIR No. 260/2024, registered at P.S. Ranpur Distt. Kota City (Raj.). ----Respondents 5. Bhanwar Lal S/o Mohan Lal, R/o Ward No. 10, Jagpura, Ranpur, Kota City Rajasthan. ----Complainant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 24/01/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.260/2024 dated 19.12.2024 at Police Station Ranpur, District Kota City for offnces under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2) and 304(2) of the BNS, 2023. [2025:RJ-JP:3583] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-457/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners with the delay of one day by false and fabricated story, for which there is no explanation. Learned counsel further submits that when the scuffle was going on between the parties, the Police came on the spot and caught hold of the petitioners for maintaining the security as well as keeping peace under the provisions of Section 126 ready of Section 170 of the BNSS, 2023. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant party has not sustained any injury and the present case has been lodged with malicious intention. 4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the averments made in the FIR and the other documents attached with the petition. 5. As regards the quashing of an FIR is concerned, it is well settled law that an FIR/criminal case can be quashed only in a case of exceptional circumstances where, no offence made out in the averments made in the FIR. 6. In the present case, this cannot be said that no offence is made out in the averments made in the FIR. Learned counsel has also submitted that the complainant party has not sustained any injury whereas, in the Police proceedings mentioned at the bottom of FIR, it has been specifically stated that the medical examination could be conducted as regards the injury sustained by the complainant party, which clearly shows that the complainant party has sustained injury. In the FIR it has also been stated that one of the member of the complainant, namely, Ramesh Chand was also [2025:RJ-JP:3583] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-457/2025] admitted in the Hospital which speaks that the injury was sustained by him. “The Apex Court in “M/s Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.” 2021 SCC Online SC 315 has held that when a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations made in the FIR. The Apex Court has further observed that power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court.” 7. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the averments made in the FIR, this Court finds that no ground for quashing the impugned FIR is made out. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /33