HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4923/2025 Anil Yadav S/o Arjun Lal Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Dhani Baluram Ji Wali, Tan Sirohi, Police Station Kotwali Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar ( Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through The P.P. 2. Chittar Mal, Officer-In- Charge Of Excise Enforcement Squad, Beawar, Excise Police Station Beawar, district Beawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR No. 22/25-26 registered with the Excise Police Station, Beawar under Sections 19/54 and 54-A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was used for transportation through a valid e-way bill. Counsel submits that if at all the driver or the khalsi of the vehicle has kept any illicit liquor in the vehicle, then under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot be held liable for these offenses. Counsel submits that one complaint under Sections 318(4), 323 and 324 (4-5), BNS has been filed by the petitioner against the driver for (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4923/2025] the aforesaid act committed by him before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Shrimadhopur, hence under these circumstances, the FIR registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the contents of FIR reveals commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the Police, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the contents of the FIR reveals the commission of a cognizable offence. Whether the petitioner was having any knowledge about carrying the illicit liquor by the driver or not, these are the disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 BNSS. Certainly, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to inquire into the same. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a representation along with relevant documents in support of his contentions before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/21