HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.7856/2025 Vikram Singh Khichi S/o Raghunath Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Jaitpura, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Sanju Raju S/o Raju A.g., R/o Fc-19, Film City, Sector 16, Noida, Sector 20 Gautambudh Nagar, U.p. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Pandey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/12/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of FIR No.257/2025 registered with Police Station Ashok Nagar, District Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Sections 308(2), 318(4) & 351(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever. Inspite of the above, the impugned FIR has been registered against him with incorrect allegations. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. 3. 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 and the same is liable to be investigated by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. He submits that the co-accused-Ashish Dave has also preferred S.B. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7856/2025] Criminal Misc. Petition No.5786/2025 before this Court seeking quashment of the FIR, and the said petition has been decided by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2025. Hence, the petitioner also deserves the same treatment. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the contents of the impugned FIR reveals commission of cognizable offence. This Court cannot adjudge the correctness and genuineness of the allegations levelled in the FIR while exercising its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 BNSS. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Agency. 6. The co-accused Ashish Dave has also preferred identical petition bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.5786/2025 and the same was heard and rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2025 with the following observations in Para 23:- “23. This Court finds that the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR constitute commission of a cognizable offence. Whether allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner are correct, genuine or true, the same is the subject-matter of investigation and the plea sought to be taken by the petitioner before this Court in respect of his innocence, is also required to be considered by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. At this stage, when investigation of the allegations made in the impugned FIR is pending to be carried out, it cannot be said that involvement of petitioner in the impugned FIR is improbable or allegations levelled therein have been manifestly attended with mala fides, with an ulterior motive either for wreaking vengeance or to settle personal grudges or throw the petitioner out from employment. It cannot be held that if, allegations made in the impugned FIR are taken on their face value, they (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7856/2025] do not prima facie constitute any offence or do not make out a case against the petitioner.” 7. Under these circumstances, this Court finds no valid reason to take a different view. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file representation before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. 8. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, he shall issue a notice to the petitioner, as required under Section 35 of the BNSS. 9. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/79