[2026:RJ-JP:29981] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3841/2013 CNR: RJHC020157462013 | URN: CRLMP / 6183U / 2013 Manoj son of Ram Nath Agarwal resident of Maina Wali Gali, Indra Ganj, Gwalior (MP) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan 2. Sita Ram Meena, SHO, P.S. Nihal Ganj, Dist. Dholpur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rinesh Gupta with Mr. Sarwat Alam, Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Chouhan Mr. Ashutosh Singh Naruka and Mr. Gorang Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 03/08/2026 1. The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner-applicant for quashing FIR No. 275/2012 registered at Police Station Nihalganj, District Dholpur, for offences under Sections 420, 272, 273 IPC and 7(1)/16 of the Food Adulteration Act and 33/51 of the Packaged Commodities Bat Measurement Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance upon the judgment dated 24.10.2025 passed in Criminal Case No. 11/2013 (843/2014) by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur, submits that five accused, against whom the charge-sheet had been filed, in current FIR have been acquitted after full trial. He further referred to [2026:RJ-JP:29981] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-3841/2013] the seizure memo and the contents of a charge-sheet filed against the other persons and submits that the entire evidence is against Rajendra Khandelwal, who was the occupier of the shop at the time of the alleged search and seizure. He further submitted that only on the basis of information, given by co-accused which is not admissible in evidence in view of the provisions under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, the present petitioner was arrayed as an accused. He further referred to the order dated 19.11.2016 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2984/2014, titled as Hasmukh versus State of Rajasthan and Anr., by a Coordinate Bench and submits that prosecution on the basis of information furnished by other co-accused accused, a Coordinate Bench has quashed the proceedings in relation to the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. The aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. Admittedly, the present petitioner is not named in the FIR and even in the contents of the FIR, the role and involvement of present petitioner have not been mentioned as a person involved in the incident. After investigation, the police has filed a charge-sheet against six persons for offences under Sections 420, 272, 273, 120B IPC and 7/16 of the Food Adulteration Act and 33/51 of the Packaged Commodities Bat Measurement Act, but kept the [2026:RJ-JP:29981] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-3841/2013] investigation pending against the present petitioner under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. 6. The petitioner filed the present miscellaneous petition on 10.10.2013 seeking quashing of FIR No. 275/2012 registered at Police Station Nihalganj, Dist. Dholpur. The material submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner also indicates that five persons faced trial and learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and, vide judgment dated 24.10.2025, has acquitted all the five persons from the offences for which they were charged. By the acquittal order even Rajendra, who named present petitioner was also acquitted. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report which indicates that after investigation, the police has already filed a charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. on 12.04.2017. The aforementioned facts clearly indicate that during the pendency of the present miscellaneous petition, a conclusion was drawn against the petitioner and a charge-sheet was filed. After filing of the charge-sheet, the procedure as prescribed under Chapter XIX of the then Cr.P.C., 1973 became applicable. The petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor are any allegations made against him in the contents of the FIR. 8. Having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the judgment in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, certain illustrative categories were laid [2026:RJ-JP:29981] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-3841/2013] down for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, and the same are reproduced as under: (a) 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; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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; (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint 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; (d) 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; (e) 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; [2026:RJ-JP:29981] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-3841/2013] (f) 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; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide 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. 9. These categories were considered in the case of Anukul Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another, 2025 INSC 1153, wherein it was held that the categories in Bhajan Lal (supra) are illustrative and not exhaustive, but they provide guiding principles to balance two competing considerations: (a) preventing abuse of the process of law; and (b) ensuring that proceedings are not stuffled at the threshold where disputed questions of fact are involved. 10. The police report further suggest that present petitioner was involved in similar nature of cases. In police investigation, involvement of petitioner is found for the offence, therefore considering the police report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor, I am of considered view that the case of present petitioner does not fall in any of the illustrations as mentioned by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) and as referred in case of [2026:RJ-JP:29981] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-3841/2013] Anukul Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another (supra) thus this is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court cannot consider and evaluate evidence and merits of the case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. Having considered the aforesaid principles, it is apparent that the petitioner has not challenged any subsequent proceedings initiated against him, including the charge- sheet. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and, at the time when the present petition was filed, the investigation was pending. Subsequently, the five persons against whom the charge-sheet was filed faced trial, though they were acquitted. 12. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition, along with all pending application(s) is hereby dismissed. 13. The stay order stands vacated and stay application is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 34/PREETI VALECHA