[2025:RJ-JP:42539] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5869/2025 Vishvendra Singh S/o Bharat Singh, R/o Chhonkarwada, Tehsil Bhusawar, P.s. Kherli Mod, District Bharatpur. ----Accused/Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent 2. Smt. Asha W/o Vishvendra Singh D/o Satveer Singh, R/o Chhonkarwada, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur At Present R/o Laxmi Nagar, Bharatpur. ----Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitesh Rana for Mr. Ved Prakash Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 16/10/2025 This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for brevity, ‘BNSS, 2023’) has been filed for quashing the FIR No.0125/2025 dated 12.08.2025 lodged by the respondent no.2/complainant (for brevity, ‘complainant’) against the petitioner at Police Station Mahila Thana (Bharatpur), District Bharatpur for the offence under Sections 85, 316(2), 115(2), 126(2) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has falsely been implicated in this FIR. He further submits that since January, 2025, the complainant is not residing with him and the FIR has been lodged with inordinate delay. Inviting attention of this Court [2025:RJ-JP:42539] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5869/2025] towards the order dated 05.05.2022 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumher, District Bharatpur in FIR No.182/2022, he submits that in the FIR lodged by the complainant on an earlier occasion, the Investigating Agency has submitted the negative final report which was accepted by the learned Court, still, this subsequent FIR has been lodged only to harass him. Further, referring to and relying upon the statement of the complainant dated 30.08.2024 recorded under Section 183 of BNSS in the FIR No.12/24 lodged by the petitioner’s mother, he submits that therein, she has levelled no such allegation as levelled in the subject FIR meaning thereby, the allegations are product of afterthought. He, therefore, prays that the criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed and the subject FIR be quashed and set aside. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered. Indisputably, the contents of the FIR disclose commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner against the complainant. It is trite law that if the FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence, it cannot be quashed under Section 528 of BNSS. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are misconceived and do not merit acceptance. His submission that despite residing separately from the petitioner since January, 2025, the complainant has lodged the instant FIR which suffers from delay and laches and hence, it is not maintainable, is devoid of merit. It is a well settled legal principle that for constituting an offence under Section 498A and/or Section 406 IPC, it is not necessary for the complainant to reside with the accused in recent [2025:RJ-JP:42539] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5869/2025] past before lodging of the FIR or that, is should be quashed on account of delay by the High Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction. Even otherwise, it is specifically alleged in the FIR that in the month of April, 2025, she was kicked out from the matrimonial home alongwith the child by the petitioner and her mother-in-law with regard to demand of dowry. Although, of no significance; but, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not substantiate his submission that the complainant is residing separately from him since the month of January, 2025. His another limb of submission based on acceptance of the final report in FIR No.182/2022 lodged on an earlier occasion by the complainant as a ground to quash the instant FIR, is wholly misconceived and misplaced. In the subject FIR itself, it is specifically alleged that on an earlier occasion, she has lodged an FIR No.182/2022 against the petitioner and members of her in- laws family; but, a compromise took place between the parties and a perusal of the order dated 05.05.2022 reveals that the FR was accepted as the complainant did not desire to prosecute the matter further on account of compromise. Thus, it is not reflected that after investigation in the earlier FIR, the allegations were found to be false or fabricated. Further, there is no material on record to warrant an inference by this Court, at this stage, that after compromising the matter with the complainant on an earlier occasion, the petitioner would not subject her to torture and victimization again with regard to demand of dowry. Insofar as submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner based on statement of the complainant dated 30.08.2024 recorded under Section 183 of BNSS in the FIR [2025:RJ-JP:42539] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5869/2025] No.12/24 is concerned, suffice it to say that it was the FIR lodged by mother of the petitioner levying allegations against parents of the complainant of kidnapping her as also of theft wherein, in her statement, she has stated that since, she was being harassed by her husband and mother-in-law invariably, she had gone with her parents and it was neither a case of kidnapping nor, of any theft by them. This Court fails to understand as to how this statement wherein also, there is an allegation of subjecting her to harassment by the petitioner in routine, comes to rescue of the petitioner for quashing the subject FIR. As already held, since, the subject FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner, it cannot be quashed. Resultantly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J PRAGATI/40