[2026:RJ-JP:365] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7486/2025 1. Kuldeep Choudhary S/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 22 Years, 2. Subhash Chaudhary, S/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Both R/o Village Jaswantpura, Post Kanchanpura, Police Station Shrimadhopur, District Sikar Presently Tenant Of Pawan Chaudhary, Flat No. G-1, Plot No. 93, Avadhpuri, A Nangal Jaisa Near Bohra Pulia, Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur. 3. Mukesh Rolania, S/o Shri Harlal Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Village Seva Ki Dhani Nimeda, Police Station Jajod, District Sikar Presently Tenant Of Pawan Chaudhary, Flat No. G-1, Plot No. 93, Avadhpuri, A Nangal Jaisa Near Bohra Pulia, Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur, Police Station Reengus, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Mrs. Archana, W/o Late Mr. Chandrashekhar, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Lohai, Police Station Nadigaon, District Jalaun (U.p.), Currently Tenant Of Plot No. 261, Shiv Vihar Colony, Murlipura, Police Station Murlipura, Jaipur West, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhagirath Singh Kuri, Adv. with Mr. Prince Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Sultan Singh Kuri, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/01/2026 1. Instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.347/2025 registered at Police Station Murlipura, District Jaipur (West), for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) & 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNS’) and charge- [2026:RJ-JP:365] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-7486/2025] sheet No.0185/2025 dated 30.09.2025 for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 45 & 61(2)(a) of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned FIR is a second FIR lodged by complainant–respondent No. 2 in respect of the very same incident for which FIR No. 346/2025 had already been registered against the petitioners at the same police station. It is submitted that both FIRs arise out of the same occurrence, involve the same parties, and are founded on identical allegations. Consequently, the registration of the second FIR and the filing of the consequential charge-sheet amount to a clear abuse of the process of law. It is further contended that once information relating to a cognizable offence has been recorded and acted upon in terms of Section 173 of the BNSS, 2023, a second or fresh investigation on the same set of facts is impermissible in law. The impugned second FIR is thus vitiated and unsustainable. Learned counsel submits that the second FIR violates the constitutional protection against double jeopardy enshrined under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India, as well as Section 337 of the BNSS. It is urged that the second FIR is not based on any new or independent evidence and is merely a repetition of the earlier allegations, thereby exposing the petitioners to multiple prosecutions for the same offence. It is further argued that the continuation of proceedings pursuant to the impugned second FIR constitutes a misuse of the criminal law machinery and runs contrary to the settled legal principle that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to be used as an instrument of harassment or for achieving collateral or oblique [2026:RJ-JP:365] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-7486/2025] purposes. Counsel thus, prays that the impugned second FIR, the consequential charge-sheet, and all proceedings arising therefrom be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. 3. To buttress his contentions, counsel has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of TT Antony versus State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, Babubhai versus State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254, HN Rashbud and Inder Singh versus State of Delhi reported in 1995 AIR 196 and Mohan Lal versus State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2015 SC 2098. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the Counsel for the petitioners and prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned FIR. 6. In the present case, it is not in dispute that two FIRs came to be registered in respect of the same incident dated 16.08.2025. The first FIR, bearing No. 346/2025, was lodged by the complainant Rajesh Yadav against the petitioners. As per the allegations contained therein, a white Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-23-UF-1617, allegedly driven by the petitioners in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the complainant’s Breeza car. It is further alleged that subsequent to the collision, the petitioners alighted from the vehicle, assaulted the complainant, caused damage to his car, and threatened him with a pistol. The FIR further alleges that during the course of the same incident, the petitioners also ran their vehicle over a person. [2026:RJ-JP:365] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-7486/2025] 7. The second FIR, being FIR No. 347/2025, which forms the subject matter of the present petition, came to be lodged by the complainant/respondent No. 2, namely Mrs. Archana, against the petitioners. According to the allegations set out therein, on 16.08.2025 an accident took place between two vehicles, pursuant to which the occupants of the said vehicles engaged in a quarrel. It is alleged that during the course of the said incident, the white Scorpio vehicle driven by the petitioners struck the complainant’s husband and ran over him, as a consequence of which he succumbed to the injuries sustained. 8. Though it is true that both the incidents occurred in the same sequence, but it is also true that the victim in both the incidents are different, and the first FIR includes elements of only simple accident, whereas in the subsequent incident, a person died in a criminal act, for which a separate FIR was registered for the offence of murder and investigated and upon the crime being proven, a charge-sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS (Section 302 of IPC). This makes it clear that both the cases relate to two distinct crime, so there is no merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that two separate FIRs were registered in respect of the same incident. 9. From bare perusal of the impugned FIR, it discloses the commission of cognizable offences which were required to be investigated by Investigating Agency and after thorough investigation, charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and the case of the present petitioners does not cover the guidelines [2026:RJ-JP:365] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-7486/2025] issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. versus Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. 10. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances more particularly that charge-sheet has already been filed before the concerned Court and trial is going on against the petitioners, at this stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is called for in this criminal misc. petition seeking quashing of the impugned FIR and consequent charge-sheet. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition stands dismissed. 12. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki/107