[2025:RJ-JP:47721] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6595/2025 Prakash Chand Meena Son Of Shri Ramratan Meena, Resident Of Khirkhiri, Karauli, District Karauli (Raj). At Present Working As Block Programmer, Block Todabheem, District Karauli (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Reetram Singh Son Of Shri Kamal Singh, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Nangla Chhitar, Police Station Ucchain, District Bharatpur (Raj). At Present Sub Inspector, A.c.b. Chowki, Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vikram Singh Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned F.I.R. No.251/2025 registered at Police Station Todabhim, District Karauli for the offence under Sections 49, 241, 221, 351(2), 308(2), 126(2), 238(c) & 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Programmer and that several complaints were received against one Harikesh Prajapat, who is engaged in the work of preparing Aadhar Cards. Counsel submits that as per the procedure, no amount can be charged from children, but in spite of above, he was charging amount from children and excess [2025:RJ-JP:47721] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6595/2025] amount from other beneficiaries. Counsel submits that an enquiry was conducted by the petitioner against the said Harikesh Prajapat wherein these allegations were found to be correct. Thereafter, the matter was recommended by the petitioner to the higher authorities and in counterblast to the aforesaid, the said Harikesh Prajapat filed an incorrect report against the petitioner before the Anti-Corruption Bureau and now, a false F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner with the allegation that Harikesh Prajapat came with a voice recorder and the petitioner snatched the voice recorder and deleted the recorded conversation. Counsel submits that in fact no such incident has occurred, and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. 3. Lastly, he argued that before approaching this Court, a detailed comprehensive representation with regard to the above facts was submitted to the Investigating Officer, but no heed has been paid to it, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per the report lodged by the said Harikesh Prajapat, the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- from him. Hence, the process was initiated by the Anti-Corruption Bureau and voice recorder was provided to the said Harikesh Prajapat. As per the allegations levelled in the F.I.R., the petitioner snatched the said voice recorder from the said Harikesh Prajapat and deleted the voice recorded conversation therein. Counsel submits that allegations levelled in the F.I.R. reveal commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating [2025:RJ-JP:47721] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6595/2025] Agency, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition filed by the petitioner is liable to rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court while exercising its inherent powers contained under Section 528 of BNSS, cannot adjudge the correctness and genuineness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the F.I.R. It is a settled proposition of law that if the contents of the F.I.R. reveal commission of any cognizable offence, then certainly, the matter is required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. 7. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file further representations along-with relevant documents in support thereof before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /65