[2025:RJ-JP:9727] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 8343/2024 Smt. Mamta Devi W/o Sh. Ram Singh Yadav, R/o Deva Ki Dhani, Vpo- Bidara, Teh- Shahpura, Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP 2. Rohitashawram S/o Shri Hajarilal, R/o Plot No. 3, Skim Ji 11, Veshali Nagar, Jaipur, Shahpura, Jaipur Rural. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 5267/2024 Ram Singh Yadav S/o Shri Banshi, R/o Bidara, Shahpura, Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP 2. Rohitashvram S/o Shri Hajarilal, R/o Plot No. 3, Skim Ji 11, Veshali Nagar, Jaipur, Shahpura, Jaipur Rural. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Liyakat Khan Mr. Susheel Pujari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG Mr. Ajay Gupta & Ms. Sampati Sharma for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 05/03/2025 1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 528 of BNSS have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR No.91/2024, registered at Police Station Shahpura (Jaipur Rural) District Jaipur Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 323, 341 & 504 of IPC. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor states that during investigation the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(f)(g) & 3(2)(Va) of [2025:RJ-JP:9727] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-8343/2024] Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have also been added in view of the fact that the complainant party belongs to scheduled tribe and the allegations against the petitioners who do not belong to the said category, is of entering into the agricultural land of the complainant- party. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged with the false and fabricated facts. Counsel further submits that the revenue proceedings are pending in between the parties before the Revenue Court as regards the dispute over the land in question and in such circumstances, the present FIR is not sustainable and same deserves to be quashed. Counsel also submits that the civil litigations are pending before the Revenue Court as regards the partition of the agricultural land in question. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer made in the petition and submit that a preliminary decree was passed by the Revenue Court on 16.02.2018 and after calling the required reports and other formalities, the final decree was passed on 14.05.2018. Counsel for the complainant further submits that the petitioners entered into the agricultural land which was in Khatedari of the complainant and also demolished the fencing etc. and made attack on the complainant with fist and kicks. 5. Heard. 6. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant and also perused the averments made [2025:RJ-JP:9727] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-8343/2024] in the FIR and so also the other material as regards the litigation pending between the parties. 7. The law as regards the quashing of FIR has been settled in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 48 482 of the Code which 482 we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com-plaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted [2025:RJ-JP:9727] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-8343/2024] by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 8. On perusal of the averments made in the FIR, it cannot be said that from the averments made in the FIR, no cognizable offence is made out. 9. One of the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the litigation is still pending between the parties before the Revenue Court. 10. On perusal of the record as regards the litigation pending between the parties, the Court finds that on a suit filed by the complainant before the Assistant Collector Fast Track, Shahpura, District Jaipur in the year 2017 as regards the partition of the land [2025:RJ-JP:9727] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-8343/2024] in question, a preliminary decree was passed by the revenue Court on 16.02.2018 and after calling the required reports and other formalities, the final decree was passed on 14.05.2018. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the decree in favour of the complainant was passed ex-parte and the petitioners have moved an application for setting aside the ex- parte decree. 12. The aforesaid facts clearly speak that the accused party is well-aware about the decree passed by Revenue Court and the land in question is of the petitioners. As per the decree passed by the Court and as per the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that the application for setting aside the said decree is already pending, therefore, the accused-petitioners were not supposed to interfere in the possession and use of the land in question by the complainant party, even then it is alleged that they entered into the land in question and demolished the fencies etc. and made attack on complainant by fist and kicks. 13. In view of the above facts, the impugned FIR cannot be quashed merely because the application for setting aside the ex- parte decree, which was passed in favour of the complainant, is pending. Whether the allegations against the accused-petitioners are false or correct, it is only the Investigating Agency which after making its investigation and collecting evidence, can draw its conclusion. This Court has no proper mechanism provided to ascertain the veracity of the allegations at this stage. 14. Hence, this Court finds no ground to quash the impugned FIR in the matter. [2025:RJ-JP:9727] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-8343/2024] 15. Accordingly, these criminal misc. petitions are dismissed. 16. Stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. 17. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected case file. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J DIVYA SAINI /79-80