HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5637/2025 1. Seema Sharma W/o Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ranoli, Dausa, Rajasthan -303501. 2. Chandan Sharmaj W/o Vishnu Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Koli Mohalla, Ranoli, Dausa, Sikrai, Rajasthan- 303501. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor. 2. Kedar Prasad Meena S/o Ramniwas Meena, R/o Bheru Waali Dhani, Tan Gothda, Dausa, Sadar Dausa, Daura, Rajasthan- 303501. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Pareek with Ms. Sumitra Choudhary and Mr. S.L. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Koshlesh Kumar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/11/2025 1. Pursuant to the order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.15984/2025, the matter has been taken up at top of the list. 2. By way of filing this petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of the impugned FIR No.415/2025 registered with the Police Station Kotwali (Dausa), District Dausa for the offences under Sections 115(2) & 126(2) of the BNS, 3(1)(r), (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5637/2025] 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in counterblast to the FIR registered by the petitioner against the complainant, the instant FIR has been lodged implicating the petitioners’ entire family members. Counsel submits that in fact no such incident has occurred, which has been narrated in the impugned FIR. Counsel submits that looking to the entire background, facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahmood Ali & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 613. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the arguments and submitted that the contents of the impugned FIR reveal commission of a cognizable offence, hence interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer along with a representation and documents in support thereof. Investigating Officer would examine the same in accordance with law. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5637/2025] 6. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that interrogation is required with the petitioners, then at least 15 days notice be given to the petitioners under Section 35 of the BNSS. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/1