[2025:RJ-JP:14076] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 1329/2025 Gurdas Singh S/o Shri Pramod Kumar, R/o Baldhi Bypass, Karnal, Police Station Karmnal Sadar (Hariyana) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through PP 2. Bhoop Singh S/o Shri Udal Singh Gurjar, At Present Head Condtable No. 189, Police Station Sadar Dausa, District Dausa (Rajasthan.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishan Singh Rawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 27/03/2025 1. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the FIR No.396/2023 (dated 18.10.2023) registered at Police Station Sadar Dausa, District Dausa (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner is a taxi driver and his taxi was hired by the co-accused persons for going to Mehandipur Balaji from Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. Counsel further submits that the Police has falsely shown recovery of certain cartridge from the possession of the accused-petitioner whereas, the alleged fire-arm and the cartridge belong to other co-accused persons who were travelling in his taxi. [2025:RJ-JP:14076] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1329/2025] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material made available on record. 5. Law is well settled with regard to quashing of criminal proceeding 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 [2025:RJ-JP:14076] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1329/2025] 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 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.” 6. From the perusal of the averments made in the FIR, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out from the averments as stated in the First Information Report. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the false recovery has been shown by the Police from the possession of the accused- petitioner, as regards the correctness of the allegations and recovery, this Court has no proper mechanism to ascertain whether the allegations and the recovery made from the accused- petitioner is true or false? It is for the Investigating Officer after making thorough investigation and collecting the evidence, draw [2025:RJ-JP:14076] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1329/2025] the conclusion whether the allegations levelled against the petitioner are true or false. 8. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a taxi driver and his taxi was hired by the co-accused persons for travelling from Gomti Nagar, Lucknow to Mehandipur Balaji. The alleged recovery is made at Bhandarej Mod, District Dausa. 9. The submissions of the counsel for the petitioner could not persuade the Court for the reason that Bhandarej Mod, District Dausa does not come in the way from Gomti Nagar, Lucknow to Mehandipur Balaji, therefore, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived. 10. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Bhajan Lal (supra), this Court finds no ground to interfere in the impugned FIR. 11. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is dismissed. 12. Stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J DIVYA SAINI /11