HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.7785/2024 1. Kush Mittal S/o Shri Nawal Kishor Mittal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 61 Parshvnath Puram, Near Exotica Hotel, Kunhadi, Dohnya, Kota, Rajasthan- 324008 2. Ankit Mittal S/o Shri Naval Mittal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Mittal Mension, Old Sabji Mandi, Char Khamba, Kota City, Rajasthan- 324006 3. Siddharth Jain S/o Shri Naresh Jain, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Jain Colony, Jain Bara, Purana Shivil Laine, Baran, Baran Mdj, Baran, Rajasthan- 325205 ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor. 2. Girraj Khatik S/o Shri Kishan Khatik, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Lovely Shastari School Ke Pass, Power House Cohraha, Indra Gandhi Nagar, Udyoagpuri, Udyog Nagar, Kota City, (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/12/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of FIR No.251/2024 registered with Police Station Nanta, District Kota City for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 324(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3) & 3(5) of the BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7785/2024] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and the complainant are business partners and on account of verbal argument between them, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner against the complainant and in counter-blast to the aforesaid, the impugned FIR has been lodged by the complainant against the petitioner with vague allegations. Learned counsel submits that all the alleged offences are cognizable, except the offence under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. Learned counsel submits that no such incident has occurred, and the complaint has been used as an instrument to lodge a report against the petitioner for the cognizable offence, i.e., Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned FIR be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the allegations made in the impugned FIR reveals commission of a cognizable offence, which is required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant misc. petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that allegations made in the impugned FIR are subject matter of investigation and the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 BNSS, 2023. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a representation before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7785/2024] 6. 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. 7. 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/20