[2026:RJ-JP:11553] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8361/2025 Manoj Son Of Shri Dhanna Lal Bairwa, Resident Of Vpo- Harigarh, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar, Presently Posted On The Post Of Village Development Officer At Khatakhedi, Panchayat Samiti Manoharthana, Police Station Manoharthana, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor 2. Dinesh Kumar Son Of Mangilal, Resident Of Manoharthana, Police Station Manohar Thana, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8362/2025 Dayaram Son Of Shri Bansi Lal, Resident Of Vpo- Madanpura, Post Khatakhadi, Tehsil Manohar Thana, District Jhalawar, At Present Sarpanch/administrator Of Khatakhedi, Panchayat Samiti Manoharthana, Police Station Manoharthana, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor 2. Dinesh Kumar Son Of Mangilal, Resident Of Manoharthana, Police Station Manohar Thana, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RK Gauttam, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP and Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/03/2026 1. These Criminal Misc. Petitions have been filed under Section 528 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners for quashing of FIR No.263/2025 registered at Police Station Manohar Thana, District [2026:RJ-JP:11553] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8361/2025] Jhalawar for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 468 & 471 of the IPC. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned FIR is false and same has been lodged after a delay of more than three years in respect of the incident which allegedly took place on 15.06.2022. Counsel submits that petitioner Manoj is Village Development Officer and petitioner Dayaram is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Khatakhedi, Panchayat Samiti Manohar Thana and the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioners due to political rivalry. Counsel further contends that bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that no criminal offence is made out against the petitioners. Thus, the impugned FIR may be quashed being false and concocted. 3. Learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. 4. In compliance with the directions of this Court, learned State Counsel places on record factual report dated 22.02.2026 received from Police Station Manohar Thana, District Jhalawar. According to the factual report, the complaint filed against the petitioners in respect of preparing forged job cards has been found correct. 5. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the FIR as well as factual report. 6. Bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the contents of FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners. The factual report also shows that ample evidence is available against the petitioners for commission of the alleged [2026:RJ-JP:11553] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8361/2025] offences. There are serious allegations against the petitioners regarding misuse of their post by preparing forged job cards and thereby, misusing the government fund. Thus, the case of the present petitioners is not covered by the guidelines prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. versus Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR are required to be investigated by the Investigation Agency. Thus, this Court does not find a good ground to quash the FIR. 8. Accordingly, these Criminal Misc. Petitions stand dismissed. 9. The stay application(s) and pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki /58-59