[2026:RJ-JP:28541] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.9606/2022 CNR: RJHC020867362022 | URN: CRLMP / 16696U / 2022 1. Ramswaroop S/o Ramnath Meena, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Pachala, Aligarh, Tonk, Rajasthan. 2. Mahaveer Meena S/o Ramswaroop, R/o Pachala, Aligarh, Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Ramprasad S/o Nanda Meena, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Pachala, Aligarh, Tonk, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Yadav for Dr. Mahesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Nikhlesh Katara JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/07/2026 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred with a prayer to quash the impugned FIR No.163/2022, registered at the Police Station Aligarh, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 307 and 34 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard to the same incident and same offence, two different FIRs have been registered against the petitioners by the same complainant. Learned counsel submits that on earlier occasion also, an FIR bearing No.158/2022 was registered by the complainant against the petitioners with the Police Station Aligarh, District Tonk for the [2026:RJ-JP:28541] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-9606/2022] offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 427, 307 and 504 IPC. Now with regard to the same incident, the complainant has lodged the impugned FIR. Learned counsel submits that registration of successive FIR with regard to the same allegations tantamounts to abuse of the process of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that several disputes are lying pending between the parties, hence with a view to put pressure upon the petitioners, they have been falsely booked in the instant case, therefore, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the FIR No.158/2022 pertains to the incident dated 15.07.2022, while the impugned FIR No.163/2022 pertains to the incident dated 09.09.2022. Both the incidents are different, hence, two different FIRs have been registered. They further submit that after thorough investigation in the matter, involvement of the petitioner No.2-Mahaveer Meena has been found to be proved, while the involvement of the petitioner No.1-Ramswaroop has not been found, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that FIR No. 158/2022 pertains to the incident dated 15.07.2022 while the impugned FIR No.163/2022 pertains to the incident dated 09.09.2022, meaning [2026:RJ-JP:28541] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-9606/2022] thereby, both incidents occurred on different dates, hence, two different FIRs have been registered. 7. This Court finds no substance in the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that with regard to the same incident two different FIRs have been registered. 8. Looking to the fact that after thorough investigation in the present case, a prima facie case has already been found to be proved against the petitioner No.2-Mahaveer Meena for the offences under Sections 308, 323, 504 and 325 IPC and no case has been found against the petitioner No.1-Ramswaroop, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant petition. 9. At this stage, only prima facie case is required to be seen and perusal of the impugned FIR reveals that allegations of cognizable offence have been levelled against the petitioner No.2- Mahaveer Meena. This Court is not going to appreciate the evidence of the witnesses and defence of the accused at this stage, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 10. Considering overall facts and circumstances, this Court deems it just and appropriate to dispose of the instant criminal misc. petition, granting liberty to the petitioners to take all these grounds and the defences before the Trial Court, at the appropriate stage of trial. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J 83/Karan