[2025:RJ-JP:5246] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4143/2023 Sahid Ali Son of Shri Fajruddin, Aged About 34 Years, Resident of Fullawas, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. –--Respondent 2. Ibrahim Son of Shri Ramhet, Aged About 45 Years, Resident of Dhulawat, Police Station Taavdu, District Nooh Mewat, Haryana. –--Complainant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Jatav For State : Mr. Naresh Gupta, P.P. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Yadav, Addl. S.P. SIUCAW, Bhiwadi, present in person. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 06/02/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. Petition for quashing the First Information Report No.0454/2023 registered at Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwadi for offences under Sections 323, 341, 506 & 376-D of I.P.C., qua the petitioner. 2. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that accused/petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case, whereas he has nothing to do with the alleged incident. He further submits that allegations against petitioner are that he took the prosecutrix in a black color car and even after passing of two years, police has not been able to identify that black color car. [2025:RJ-JP:5246] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4143/2023] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor on the instructions from the Investigation Officer, present in Court, submits that initially the investigation was conducted by one of the Investigation Officers, who found the allegations against petitioner to be proved and, thereafter, under the directions of the higher Authority, the investigation was transferred to other Investigation Officer. Second Investigation Officer, after investigation, came to the conclusion that allegations against the accused/petitioner are found to be proved, then the accused/petitioner approached the Chief Minister Office and on his representation, the investigation has now been transferred to third Officer. Third Investigation Officer, who is present in person before the Court, has also stated that he has almost completed the investigation and he will shortly submit the conclusion report. As per the Investigation Officer, the allegations against the accused/petitioner are found to be proved. 4. Considered the statements made by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and the statements of the Investigation Officer, who is present in person before this Court. 5. Law is well settled with regard to quashing of F.I.R. in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows:- “102. 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 extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 48 482 of the Code which 482 we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could [2025:RJ-JP:5246] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4143/2023] 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 FIR 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 com-plaint 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. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR 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 malafide 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. [2025:RJ-JP:5246] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4143/2023] 103. 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 allegations made in the FIR 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. On perusal of the averments made in the F.I.R. and the evidence collected during investigation, this Court finds that present case does not come under the purview of guidelines framed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra), for quashing of the F.I.R. 7. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Stay application stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J AMIT/23