Satpal Singh @ Buta Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19160) on 21 April, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Satpal Singh @ Buta Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19160) on 21 April, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:19160]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3093/2025

1.       Satpal Singh @ Buta Singh S/o Gurdev Singh, Aged About
         19 Years, R/o Chak 4 B Bari Pakki, Hindumal Kot Dist.
         Sriganganagar. (Lodged In Central Jail Sriganganagar)
2.       Rajvinder     Singh         @    Rajendra        Singh     @    Raja    S/o
         Jasvinderpal Singh @ Mata Singh, Aged About 22 Years,
         R/o    Chak     4       B    Bari    Pakki,       Hindumal     Kot     Dist.
         Sriganganagar.
                                                                     ----Petitioners
                                         Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Bimla Rani W/o Machret Singh, R/o Chak 4 B Bari Pakki,
         Hindumal Kot Dist. Sriganganagar.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :       Mr. Rishabh Handa
For Respondent(s)            :       Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
                                     Mr. Kshitij Vyas for complainant



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

21/04/2025

By way of filing present criminal misc. petition under Section

528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have prayed for quashing

of FIR No.29/2025 lodged against them at Police Station Hindumal

Kot, District Sri Ganganagar, for the offences under Section 70(1),

331(5), 127(2) and 115(2) of BNS.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

available to this Court.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of

Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1)

SCC 335 has illustrated the situations wherein, the extraordinary

(Downloaded on 23/04/2025 at 10:02:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19160] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3093/2025]

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised by the

High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or

otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Hon’ble Court

illustrated 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 265 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;

(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

(Downloaded on 23/04/2025 at 10:02:30 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19160] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3093/2025]

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.”

Having gone through the niceties of the matter and the

material available on record, this Court prima facie finds that a

perusal of the FIR indicates that there are specific allegation in the

FIR of committing sexual assault upon the victim- respondent

No.2 by the present petitioners. Further, the allegations against

the present petitioners is of beating the victim- respondent No.2.

The FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences; no case for

quashing of FIR is made out against them; the petitioners have

committed a cognizable offence and the FIR as well as the

evidence collected in support of the same do disclose the

commission of an offence.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to exercise

inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

In the result, the present misc. petition filed by the

petitioners is dismissed.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
34-himanshu/-

(Downloaded on 23/04/2025 at 10:02:30 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)