[2025:RJ-JP:47090] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5291/2021 Ramesh Chandra Meena Son of Shri Ram Singh Meena, Resident of Village Parsadi Ka Pura, Nahar Ke Pas Rajor, Police Station Todabheem, District Karauli, at present Labour Welfare Inspector, Labour Department, District Karouli. ----Accused/Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP 2. Mangilal S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay, aged about 56 years, Resident of Plot No. 465-A Tara Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur, at present Dy. SP Special Unit Second, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Complainant/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 21/11/2025 1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Vide order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the petitioner was directed to appear before the Investigating Officer as well as to submit representation for consideration and was thus, directed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted one factual report dated 22.10.2021, which reveals that although in compliance of order dated 07.09.2021, the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer on 10.09.2021. The Investigating [2025:RJ-JP:47090] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-5291/2021] Officer conducted preliminary investigation from the petitioner and bound him to appear again for further investigation as well as for giving his voice sample, but thereafter, the petitioner did not appear before the Investigating Officer. 4. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has not complied with order dated 07.09.2021 in its letter and spirit and has not been co-operating with the Investigating Officer. 5. In view of above, no relief as claimed by the petitioner for quashing FIR No.225/2021 dated 27.06.2021 can be granted to him, moreso when bare perusal of FIR does not make out any case of quashing in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. In the light of above, no interference is called for in the instant petition, and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /8