HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6840/2025 1. Pradeep Pal S/o Shri Satyendra Pal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 15, Patrakar Colony, Mahaveer Nagar-I, Kota. 2. Kaushal Tomar S/o Shri Virendra Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 269, Rajput Colony, Rangbari, Kota. 3. V.S. Tomar @ Virendra Singh Tomar S/o Shri Babu Singh, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 269, Rajput Colony, Ranbari, Kota. 4. Vivek Tomar S/o Shri Virendra Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 269, Rajput Colony, Rangbari, Kota. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Sohan Pal Meena S/o Revadmal Meena, R/o 2-K-12, Old Bansal Classes, Vigyan Nagar, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 29/10/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, validity of FIR No.184/2025 registered with Police Station Jawahar Nagar, Kota City has been assailed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a complaint was filed against the complainant for taking departmental action against him for the misconduct, on 12.09.2025 before the District and Sessions Judge, Kota, wherein, the petitioners were directed to appear for recording (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6840/2025] their evidence on 04.10.2025. Counsel submits that in counterblast to the aforesaid proceedings initiated by the petitioners against the complainant, the instant false FIR with incorrect allegations has been registered. Counsel submits that the aforesaid case lodged by the complainant against the petitioners is quite false, hence, the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside. Counsel submits that before approaching this Court, the petitioners approached Investigating Agency to look into the matter, but no heed has been paid, hence, under the compelling circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments and submitted that the allegations made in the FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence, which is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the FIR are subject matter of investigation and the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 of the BNSS. The petitioners may approach the Investigating Agency again by way of filing representation and the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 5. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6840/2025] he shall issue a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS against the petitioners before proceeding further against him. 6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/36