[2025:RJ-JP:49123] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.7055/2025 Sudhir Kumar Katariya S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, R/o Ghasiram Ka Bass, Tehsil Malsisr, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Rajendra Kumar S/o Birbalram, R/o Marigasar, Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Deshraj Sain Mr. Khubi Lal 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 impugned FIR No.344/2025 registered with Police Station Kotwali Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Section 108 of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were business transactions between the deceased and the petitioner and some dispute occurred between them for which an FIR was lodged by the deceased against the petitioner bearing No.165/2023 with Police Station Kotwali Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 420 & 406 IPC on 22.03.2023. Learned counsel submits that with regard to the same business transactions, now another FIR has been lodged [2025:RJ-JP:49123] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7055/2025] against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has abetted the deceased in committing suicide. In fact, the petitioner has neither abetted nor instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel submits that there is no proximity between the allegations regarding business transactions with the cause of death of the deceased. Hence, under these circumstances, the impugned FIR is not tenable and is liable to be quashed. 3. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R. Shashirekha Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 363. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant oppose the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the allegations levelled in the FIR reveals commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner. The deceased has written the suicide note prior to committing suicide, wherein allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and the allegations are required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency. 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. Whether the petitioner has abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide or not; whether the business transactions between the parties was the reason for the occurrence or not. All these are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudged by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction [2025:RJ-JP:49123] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7055/2025] contained under Section 528 BNSS. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer. 7. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate representation, along-with documents in support thereof, 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, then he shall ensure compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS. 9. 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/40