[2026:RJ-JP:30877] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2786/2026 CNR: RJHC020413132026 | URN: CRLMP / 6297U / 2026 Rakesh Dayma S/o Shri Yadram, R/o Village Chatarpur, Narayanpur, District Kotputli- Behror (Rajasthan). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent 2. Nitin Gupta S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Gupta, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Tower-1, Plot No. 918, Apana Ghar Shalimar, Police Station Alwar Sadar, District Alwar. At Present Assistant Engineer, Narayanpur Jaipur Discom. ----Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/08/2026 1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.171/2025 registered at Police Station Naraianpur, District Kotputli-Behror for offences punishable under Sections 132, 127(2), 351(2) and 189(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that instant FIR has been registered to falsely implicate the petitioner. Counsel submits that there was no occasion before the police officials to register the FIR as every citizen is free to raise lawful demands before public servant. Counsel submits that impugned [2026:RJ-JP:30877] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2786/2026] FIR is lodged with a delay of almost three days and no explanation has been given by the complainant for lodging the FIR with a delay. Therefore, it is prayed that the present petition may be allowed and the impugned FIR may be quashed. 3. Learned State Counsel places on record the factual report dated 02.08.2026 received from SHO, Police Station Naraianpur, District Kotpulti-Behror. According to the factual report, offence punishable under Section 132 of BNS, 2023 has been found proved against the petitioner and the investigation was forwarded to the higher authorities for verification and after which the investigation done by the Investigating Officer has been found correct. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the impugned FIR would reveal that when the complainant, who was posted as an Assistant Engineer, was performing his official duty in the office, petitioner along with 15- 20 persons entered his office and started threatening him to immediately release the transformer. Thereafter, they forcibly locked the office and wrongfully confined the complainant therein and threatened the complainant and his family members. During investigation, the Police found the offence punishable under Section 132 of BNS to be proved against the petitioner and therefore, in these circumstances, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the guidelines prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. Furthermore, learned [2026:RJ-JP:30877] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2786/2026] counsel for the petitioner failed to satisfy this Court as to existence of any such exceptional or attending circumstance under which, even if the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence, it can be quashed. In view thereof, the allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR against petitioner are required to be investigated by the Investigation Agency. Thus, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the impugned FIR. 7. Accordingly, the present Cr. Misc. Petition is hereby dismissed. 8. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 36/MADAN