[2025:RJ-JP:48191] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.8777/2024 1. Dulichand S/o Shri Gopichand, R/o Village Govindpura, Tehsil And P.s. Weir, District Bharatpur. 2. Nawal S/o Shri Ramsingh, R/o Village Govindpura, Tehsil And P.s. Weir, District Bharatpur. 3. Phoolsingh S/o Shri Panna, R/o Village Govindpura, Tehsil And P.s. Weir, District Bharatpur. 4. Jagat Singh S/o Shri Karan, R/o Village Govindpura, Tehsil And P.s. Weir, District Bharatpur. 5. Daulat S/o Shri Sukhram, R/o Village Govindpura, Tehsil And P.s. Weir, District Bharatpur. 6. Dharam Singh S/o Mohan Singh, R/o Village Govindpura, Tehsil And P.s. Weir, District Bharatpur. 7. Mukesh S/o Raghunath, R/o Village Govindpura, Tehsil And P.s. Weir, District Bharatpur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Prem Singh S/o Chiranji Lal, R/o Jag Jivan Nagar, Nihalganj, Dholpur At Present Sho Weir, District Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Chauhan Mr. Ved Prakash Saini Mr. Jai Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR No.96/2023 registered [2025:RJ-JP:48191] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-8777/2024] with the Police Station Weir, District Bharatpur under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 353, 283 IPC and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a peaceful protest/meeting of Saini Samaj was conducted by certain persons, which was objected by the Police officials and thereafter, an FIR was registered against 22 persons, wherein the name of the petitioners are mentioned. Counsel submits that the petitioners were not present in the said meeting/protest, in-spite of above, they have been falsely booked in the instant case. The petitioners are students and their entire educational career would be spoiled in case, they are apprehended and charge-sheeted in the instant case. Counsel submits that the petitioners have already submitted a representation before the concerned Investigating Officer in this regard, but no heed has been paid, hence interference of this Court is warranted. In alternate, he argued that in case, the petition is not entertained and the impugned FIR is not quashed, then at least a direction be issued to the higher official to investigate the matter in a fair and impartial manner. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that during the course of investigation, identification parade was conducted and the petitioners have been duly identified, hence their involvement is found to be prima facie proved in the alleged incident occurred on 21.04.2023. Counsel submits that the allegations levelled in [2025:RJ-JP:48191] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-8777/2024] the impugned FIR reveal commission of a cognizable offence, hence the matter is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency, hence interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. This Court while exercising its inherent jurisdication contained under Section 528 of the BNSS cannot adjudicate or adjudge the correctness of the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Agency, who will investigate the involvement of the accused persons, who were alleged to have committed the incident. 6. If it is a case of the petitioners that they were not present at the spot at the time of the alleged incident and a representation has been submitted in this regard by them before the Investigating Officer, it is expected from the concerned Investigating Officer to investigate from that point also in accordance with law and in case, he comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, then before proceeding further at least a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS would be given to the petitioners. 7. The Deputy Superintendent of Police is directed to monitor the investigation and ensure that a fair and impartial investigation is done by the concerned Investigating Officer. [2025:RJ-JP:48191] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-8777/2024] 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/13