[2025:RJ-JP:48920] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6745/2025 Hansraj S/o Shri Mathura Lal, R/o Raghunathpura, Police Station Sop, District Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Hanuman Gurjar S/o Jagdish Gurjar, R/o Raghunathpura, Sop, District Tonk. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakhar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/12/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of FIR No.73/2025 registered with Police Station SOP, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of alleged incident dated 16.06.2025, the petitioner was not present on the spot of the alleged incident rather, he was on duty in his office at JVVNL. Learned counsel submits that the attendance register of the corporation has been placed on record, which clearly specifies that the petitioner was present in the office and therefore, could not have been at the place of occurrence of the alleged incident. But inspite of the above, the petitioner has been falsely booked in the instant case. [2025:RJ-JP:48920] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6745/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that infact the alleged incident has occurred on 16.06.2025, but the impugned FIR has been registered on the next date for which no plausible explanation has been given, which indicates that the entire story has been falsely concocted by the complainant. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR reveals commission of cognizable offence, which are required to be investigated by the Police, during the course of investigation. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. The ground which has been raised by counsel for the petitioner that on the fateful day when the incident has occurred, i.e, 16.06.2025, the petitioner was not present on the spot of the alleged incident rather, he was posted and present in his office at JVVNL. 7. This fact cannot be adjudged by this Court while exercising its power contained under Section 528 BNSS. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer. 8. It is a settled proposition of law that if the allegations levelled in the FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence, then certainly the matter is required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. [2025:RJ-JP:48920] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6745/2025] 9. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a representation before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. 10. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, then he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS. 11. 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 Karan/31