HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6219/2025 Mousim @ Mousam S/o Chhuttan, R/o Kahrani, Police Station Bhiwadi Phase Third, Tehsil Tapukara, District Khairthal- Tijara, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ishwar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/10/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR No.88/2025 registered with Police Station Tapukada, District Bhiwadi registered for the offence under Section 8/20 of the NDPS Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner is named in the FIR nor any information has been given by the co-accused persons with regard to involvement of the petitioner in the alleged incident of recovery of contraband. Counsel submits that without there being any concrete evidence against the petitioner, the Investigating Agency is bent upon to apprehend the petitioner and submit charge-sheet against him. Therefore, interference of this Court is warranted and the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. (2 of 2) [CRLMP-6219/2025] 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that after registration of aforesaid FIR, a detailed investigation was carried out, wherein it has been revealed that the alleged contraband was purchased by the co-accused persons from the petitioner and during the course of investigation, involvement of the petitioner was found to be proved under Section 8/20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Public Prosecutor submits that since the petitioner is absconding, hence, his arrest warrants have been obtained under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 and now, charge-sheet has been proposed against him under Sections 8/20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the involvement of the petitioner has been revealed during the course of investigation by the Police, hence, at this stage, this Court would not like to interfere with the investigation of the Police, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 BNSS. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit and substance in this petition. 5. The instant criminal misc. petition stands rejected. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand rejected. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/19