[2026:RJ-JP:31345] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3095/2026 CNR: RJHC020461882026 | URN: CRLMP / 7004U / 2026 1. Randheer Singh Son Of Shri Rohitash, Aged About 49 Years, 2. Rahul Yadav Son Of Shri Randheer Yadav, Aged About 22 Years, 3. Motilal Son Of Shri Totaram, Aged About 64 Years, 4. Nagendrapal Son Of Shri Motilal, Aged About 38 Years, Nos.1 to 4, all Residents Of Rasoolpur Ahiran, Pacheri Badi, District Jhunjhunu (Raj). ----Accused-Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ---Respondent 2. Billu Singh Son Of Shri Ramswaroop, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Rasoolpur Ahiran, Police Station Pacheri Kalan, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. ----Complainant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/08/2026 1. This Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.13/2026 registered at Police Station Pacheri Kalan, District Jhunjhunu for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2), 351(2) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a false case has been lodged against the petitioners, as no such occurrence took place. Counsel further submits that petitioner No.1 had earlier lodged an FIR No.14/2026 at the same police station [2026:RJ-JP:31345] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-3095/2026] against the complainant for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), and 189(2) of the BNS, 2023 and the present FIR has been lodged by the complainant as a counterblast to the earlier FIR in order to harass the petitioners. Counsel submits that a perusal of the FIR would reveal that no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 4. Perusal of the impugned FIR would reveal that averments made in the FIR discloses the commission of the cognizable offence. Certain injuries were also found on the person of the complainant. In these circumstances, the case of the petitioners 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 counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners are required to be investigated by the Investigation Agency. Thus, this Court does not find any good ground to quash the impugned FIR. 5. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition is hereby dismissed. 6. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 43/MADAN