[2025:RJ-JP:4546] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 680/2025 1. Haricharan Mittal S/o Budha Ram Mittal, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Hindaun City, New Sarkari Aspatal Ke Peeche, Saket Colony, Hindaun, Karauli, Rajasthan- 322230. 2. Pankaj Mittal S/o Hari Charan Mittal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Saket Colony, Hindaun, Karauli, Rajasthan- 322230. 3. Ravi Shankar Mittal S/o Haricharan Mittal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Hindaun City, New Sarkari Aspatal Ke Peeche, Saket Colony, Hindaun, Rajasthan- 322230. 4. Devendra Kumar Gupta S/o Govind, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Keshav Pura, Hindaun, Karauli, Rajasthan- 322230. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP 2. Ashok S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Chamarpura, Sadar Hindaun, Karauli, Rajasthan- 322230. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Gupta with Mr. Akshay Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 03/02/2025 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR No.22/2025 registered at Police Station New Mandi Hindaun, District Karauli for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2), 352 & 303(2) of BNS and Section 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. [2025:RJ-JP:4546] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-680/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a civil suit along with an application for interim relief against Vikram Tomar, Ashok Agarwal & Ramesh with the averments that the defendants in the civil suit are trying to take possession of their plot and have started construction of boundary wall over there. Counsel further submits that the application for interim relief is pending. Counsel further submits that the petitioners have also lodged an FIR bearing No. 21/2025 at Police Station Nai Mandi Hindaun, District Karauli for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) & 3(5) of BNS making allegations against Ashok Gudwar and certain other persons who accompanied him to encroach upon his plot. Counsel also submits that so as to counter the criminal case lodged by the petitioners, Ashok through one of his labour, has filed the present case against the petitioners. 3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that lodging of criminal case against the petitioners by way of impugned FIR, is sheer misuse of process of law, which requires indulgence of this Court in exercise of its inherent powers. 4. The law has been well-settled in regard to quashing of a criminal case 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 [2025:RJ-JP:4546] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-680/2025] 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:4546] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-680/2025] 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.” 5. After going through the contents of the FIR, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the accused-petitioners. 6. In view of the statements made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the averments made in the FIRs lodged from both the sides, the matter requires detail investigation by the Police and only then it can be said that version of which side is genuine and bona fide. There can be a situation that the accused- petitioners might have lodged the criminal case against the present complainant party which is going to be lodged against them by the complainant party, in view of the act committed by them which is an offence under the law. 7. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and the law settled in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court finds no ground to interfere and exercise the inherent powers. 8. Accordingly, this misc. petition is dismissed. 9. Stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J DIVYA SAINI /47