Irfan Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24528) on 20 May, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Irfan Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:24528) on 20 May, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:24528]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3088/2025

Irfan Khan S/o Ayub Khan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Khan
Mohalla, Kuchaman City, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.          State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.          Mahaveer Prasad S/o Asuram, R/o Budot, Didwana,
            Khunkhuna, Dist. Nagaur, Raj.
                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Shree Kant Verma
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

20/05/2025

1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under

Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following

reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed, the F.I.R. and
the entire subsequent investigation in FIR
No.138/2023, Police Station Kuchaman City, District
Nagaur for offence u/s 420, 406, 120-B, 323, 342,
389 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, may
kindly be quashed and set aside.

Any other relief which may be considered in
favour of the petitioners may kindly be ordered to be
issued.”

2. Having perused the impugned FIR, this Court finds that the

specific allegations of cheating, beating and extortion have been

levelled against the present petitioner and the co-accused

persons.

(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:42:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24528] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3088/2025]

3. The factual report dated 16.05.2024 received by the learned

Public Prosecutor from the office of SHO, P.S. Kuchaman City,

District Deedwana- Kuchaman is taken on record which indicates

that in the result of investigation, the offences under Sections

323, 342, 389 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va)

of SC/ST Act have found to be proved against the present

petitioner. The police has also issued a standing warrant of arrest

against the petitioner under Section 37 of the Police Act.

4. In the opinion of this Court, since the factual report discloses

the commission of cognizable offences; thus, no case for quashing

of the FIR is made out.

5. This Court while exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS

cannot minutely go into the correctness of the allegations levelled

against the petitioner. At this stage, this Court is not expected to

either scan the entire material available on record or to record its

findings on each of the charges levelled against the present

petitioner.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court 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 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

(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:42:33 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:24528] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3088/2025]

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
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.”

(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:42:33 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:24528] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3088/2025]

7. In view of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration

the precedent law, this Court does not find any of the aforesaid

conditions to be prima facie fulfilled in the present case and thus

this Court is not inclined to exercise the powers vested in it under

Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the impugned FIR qua the

petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition as well as stay

application stand dismissed.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
260-divya/-

(Downloaded on 21/05/2025 at 09:42:33 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)