[2025:RJ-JP:43437] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.2477/2025 Bablu Jain @ Tanmay S/o Bhagchand Jain, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Flat No. 110, Mahima Subh Nilay, Bhankrota, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Ailly W/o Bablu @ Tanmay, R/o Deeg, Deeg, Rajasthan Permanent Address Nadbai, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H.C. Ganeshia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 29/10/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.392/2024 registered with Police Station Deeg, District Deeg for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 316(2), 115(2), 126(2) & 352 of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complainant is a quarrelsome lady and she has committed the offence of assault against the petitioner for which a criminal complaint was registered against her on 20.10.2024 before the competent court of law and on the basis of the same, FIR No.113/2025 was registered against her with Police Station Nadbai, Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 189(2) & 74 of BNSS, 2023. [2025:RJ-JP:43437] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2477/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty has also been filed by the petitioner against the complainant before the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.10, Sanganer Jaipur Metropolitan I, Jaipur and in counterblast to the same, the instant FIR has been lodged with vague and false allegations, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submit that the petitioner tortured the respondent-complainant to the extent that she attempt to commit suicide twice. Learned counsel submits that several instances occurred with the complainant and for the same, a detailed FIR has been registered, wherein after investigation the involvement of the petitioner has been found to be proven and charge sheet has been submitted against him before the competent court of law, 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. Perusal of the FIR and the allegations levelled therein reveals the commission of offence as alleged against the petitioner. At this stage, this Court cannot go into the correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner. The trial court would look into the correctness of the allegations, at the appropriate stage. If it is the case of the petitioner that in counterblast to the complaint/divorce petition, the instant FIR has been registered, he would be at [2025:RJ-JP:43437] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2477/2025] liberty to raise all these available defences/objections at the appropriate stage of the trial. 7. This Court finds no valid ground to entertain this petition to quash the impugned FIR. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands rejected. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/19