[2025:RJ-JP:49176] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3729/2025 Mahendra Singh Son Of Shri Nahar Singh, Aged About 73 Years, Resident Of Village Barah Maafi, Gahnoli Mod, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Govt. Advocat. 2. Shreechand Son Of Shri Shankar, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Barah Maafi, Gahnoli Mod, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3363/2025 Shrichand Son Of Shri Shankar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Barahmafi, Police Station Gahnoli Mod, District Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Superintendent Of Police, Bharatpur. 4. Station House Officer, Police Station Gahnauli Mod, District Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr.Dushyant Jain for complainant JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/12/2025 1. The S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3729/2025 has been submitted by the accused-petitioner, by which a prayer has been [2025:RJ-JP:49176] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3729/2025] made for quashing the impugned F.I.R. No.248/2024 registered at the Police Station Gahnoli Mod, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352 & 74 B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. While S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.3363/2025 has been submitted by the complainant-respondent seeking directions to the Investigating Officer for conducting fair and impartial investigation in the aforesaid F.I.R. 2. As per the contents of the Criminal Misc. Petition No.3729/2025, the petitioner have been falsely booked in the instant case and two persons, namely Tulsi Ram and Balveer have been shown as eye-witnesses, who were also eye witness against the petitioner in some other case. 3. It has been stated in the instant petition that in fact, no such incident has occurred and the petitioners have been falsely implicated, hence, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned F.I.R. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that the allegations mentioned in the impugned F.I.R. reveals commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the record indicates that commission of a cognizable offence and the allegations mentioned therein is a subject matter of investigation, which is required to be done by [2025:RJ-JP:49176] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3729/2025] the Investigating Officer. This Court while exercising its powers contained under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. cannot adjudge the correctness and genuineness of the allegations. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer. 7. The petitioners would be at liberty to submit an appropriate representation along-with the supporting documents before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. 8. The complainant would also be at liberty to file an appropriate representation making a prayer for speedy and impartial investigation of the impugned F.I.R., it is expected from the Investigating Officer to consider the same in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observation, both the instant criminal misc. petitions stand disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /174-175