SHIV SINGH SOLANKI S/O SHAMBHU SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMP/5875/2025 · 2025-11-27
Anoop Kumar Dhand
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44970 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 44970 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5875/2025 Shiv Singh Solanki S/o Shambhu Singh R/o Plot No. 17, Ward 13, Khejadia Megha, Guradiya Pratap, Suwasara Mandi, Mandsaur, Madhya Pradesh ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivraj Chahuan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order 27/11/2025
1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the proceedings arising out of the FIR No. 48/2025 registered with Police Station Gangdhar, Jhalawar for the offence under Sections 8/18 of the NDPS Act.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the alleged incident for which the impugned FIR has been registered. Counsel submits that the petitioner is not involved in any activities as alleged in the impugned FIR but inspite of above, the police is bent upon to apprehend and submit chargesheet against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner has not delivered any contraband to any of the accused persons. Hence interference of this Court is warranted.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the allegation
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-5875/2025] made in the impugned FIR reveals the commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the police, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.
4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.
5. This Court is not going to adjudge and examine the correctness and genuineness of the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR against the petitioner by exercising its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 BNSS. Certainly it is the job of the Investigating Officer.
6. The petitioner shall be at liberty to submit a representation along with receipt and other documents in support of his
contentions before the Investigating Officer who shall consider the same in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition stands
disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/37