Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Vishnu Garg Son Of Shri Duli Chand vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:18580) on 1 May, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:18361]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7852/2024
Hussain Mohammad Son Of Shri Pyar Mohammad, Aged About
50 Years, Resident Of 229, Kota Shiv Puri Mar, Rani Badod,baran.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Tolaram Son Of Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 41
Years, Resident Of Digodpar, Police Station Kishanganj,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 266/2024
Pramod Jain Bhaya Son Of Shri Ummaid Mal Jain, Aged About 58
Years, Resident Of Shriji Chowk, Police Station Kotwali Baran,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Rameshwar Khandelwal Son Of Shri Mool Chand
Gupta, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of Opposite
Hospital, Anta, District Baran Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 312/2024
1. Sunil Yadav Son Of Shri Hemraj Yadav, Resident Of
Vivekanand Colony, Opposite Public Park, Police Station
Kotwali Baran, District Baran, Raj.
2. Sharad Sharma Son Of Shri Rambabu Sharma, Resident
Of Shri Ji Chowk, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District
Baran, Rajasthan.
3. Ankit Boradiya @ Ankit Jain Son Of Shri Ashok Jain,
Resident Of Jain Colony, Old Civli Lines, Police Station
Kotwali Baran, District Baran , Raj.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Dilip Shakyawal Son Of Shri Durgashankar
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (2 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
Shakyawal, Resident Of Susawan Basti, Police Station
Kotwali Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 321/2024
1. Pradeep Kabra Son Of Shri Magan Lal Kabra, Aged About
57 Years, Resident Of Fathepur, Tehsil Baran, District
Baran, Raj.
2. Sharad Sharma Son Of Shri Rambabu Sharma, Resident
Of Shri Ji Chowk, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District
Baran, Rajasthan.
3. Ghanshaym Nagar Son Of Shri Kesri Lal, Aged About 62
Years, Resident Of Misai, Police Station Kishanganj,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
4. Girish @ Gopi Nagar Son Of Shri Ghanshaym Nagar, Aged
About 42 Years, Resident Of Misai, Police Station
Kishanganj, District Baran, Rajasthan.
5. Chitranjan Patahk @ Bholu Son Of Shri Rajendra Pathak,
Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Kelwada, District
Baran, Raj.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Tolaram Son Of Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 41
Years, Resident Of Digodpar, Police Station Kishanganj,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1102/2024
1. Pramod Jain Bhaya S/o Shri Ummaid Mal Jain, Aged
About 58 Years, R/o Shriji Chowk, Police Station Kotwali
Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan.
2. Chitranjan Pathak @ Bholu S/o Shri Rajendra Pathak,
Aged About 45 Years, R/o Kelwada, District Baran Raj.
3. Pradeep Kabra S/o Shri Magan Lal Kabra, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Fathepur, Tehsil Baran, District Baran, Raj.
4. Sharad Sharma S/o Shri Rambabu Sharma, R/o Shri Ji
Chowk, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran,
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (3 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
Rajasthan.
5. Kaushal Kishor Rathor S/o Shri Nand Lal Rathore, R/o
Kelwada, Police Station Kelwada, District Baran Raj.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Murari Lal S/o Shri Lakshman Lal, R/o Balda, Police
Station Kelwada, District Baran. (Complainant / Informant
Of Fir No. 57/2024 Dated 07.03.2024 Registered At Police
Station Kelwada District Baran)
2. Shri Manak Chand S/o Shri Mitthu Lal Mahajan, R/o
Kelwada, District Baran, Rajasthan. (Complainant /
Informant Of Fir No. 54/2024 Dated 04.03.2024
Registered At Police Station Kelwada District Baran).
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
4. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs And Justice,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head
Quarters, Shree Ram Road, Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. The Superintendent Of Police, District Baran, Rajasthan.
7. The Station House Officer, Police Station Anta, District
Baran, Rajasthan.
8. The Station House Officer, Police Station Kishanganj,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
9. The Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Baran,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
10. The Station House Officer, Police Station Kelwada, District
Baran, Rajasthan.
11. The Station House Officer, Police Station Mangrol, District
Baran, Rajasthan.
12. Shri Rameshwar Khandelwal S/o Shri Mool Chand Gupta,
Aged About 62 Years, R/o Opposite Hospital, Anta, Police
Station Anta, District Baran. (Complainant / Informant Of
Fir No. 02/2024 Dated 01.01.2024 Registered At Police
Station Anta District Baran).
13. Shri Dilip Shakyawal S/o Shri Durga Shankar Shakyawal,
R/o Susawan Basti, Baran. (Complainant / Informant Of
Fir No. 08/2024 Dated 03.01.2024 Registered At Police
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (4 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran).
14. Shri Tola Ram S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Degodpar, Police Station Kishanganj, District Baran.
(Complainant / Informant Of Fir No. 05/2024 Dated
03.01.2024 Registered At Police Station Kishanganj
District Baran)
15. Shri Vijay Piplani S/o Shri Badri Lal Piplani, R/o Krishna
Colony, Baran, Rajashtan. (Complainant / Informant Of
Fir No. 272/2024 Dated 02.04.2024 Registered At Police
Station Kotwali Baran District Baran).
16. Shri Jitendra Meena S/o Shri Ram Kishan Meena, R/o
Opposite Krishi Upaj Mandi, Anta, District Baran.
(Complainant / Informant Of Fir No. 204/2024 Dated
18.04.2024 Registered At Police Station Anta District
Baran).
17. Shri Digvijay S/o Shri Raghuveer, Presently Posted At
Station House Officer, Police Station Anta, District Baran,
Rajasthan. (Complainant / Informant Of Fir No. 205/2024
Dated 18.04.2024 Registered At Police Station Anta
District Baran)
18. Shri Dilip @ Bablu S/o Shri Mohan Lal Meena, R/o Borda,
Police Station Mangrol, District Baran. Rajasthan.
(Complainant / Informant Of Fir No. 205/2023 Dated
22.09.2023 Registered At Police Station Mangrol District
Baran).
19. Shri Om Prakash Nagar S/o Shri Ram Karan, R/o Itawa
Road, Mangrol, Police Station Mangrol Baran.
(Complainant / Informant Of Fir No. 60/2024 Dated
08.03.2024 Registered At Police Station Mangrol District
Baran).
20. Shri Lalit Meena, Member Of Legislative Assembly,
Constituency Kishanganj, District Baran, Rajasthan.
(Complainant / Informent Of Fir No. 75/24 Dated
20.03.2024 Registered At Police Station Kelwada, District
Baran)
21. Shri Kamal Rathore S/o Shri Dhanna Lal, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Rajpura Ward, Satsang Bhawan Road, Baran,
District Baran. (Complainant / Informant Of Fir No.
268/2024 Dated 02.02.2024 And Fir No. 271/2024 Dated
02.04.2024 Registered At Police Station Kotwali Baran
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (5 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
District Baran)
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 1417/2024
1. Naresh Sharma Son Of Shri Janki Prasad Sharma,
Resident Of 79A, Raj Nagar Bazariya, Sawaimadhopur,
District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan
2. Pramod Jain Bhaya Son Of Shri Ummaid Mal Jain, Aged
About 58 Years, Resident Of Shriji Chowk, Police Station
Kotwali Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Dilip Shakyawal Son Of Shri Durga Shankar
Shakyawal, Resident Of Susawan Basti, Baran, Police
Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1484/2024
Mustufa Khan Son Of Shri Mustkeem Khan, R/o Gulab Bari, Anta
District Baran (Raj.)
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. Rameshwar Khandelwal Son Of Mul Chand Gupta, R/o
Govt. Hospital Ke Pass, Anta District Baran (Raj.)
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1719/2024
1. Kaushal Kishor Rathor Son Of Shri Nand Lal Rathore,
Resident Of Kelwada, Police Station Kelwada, District
Baran Raj.
2. Chitranjan Pathak @ Bholu Son Of Shri Rajendra Pathak,
Resident Of Kelwada, Police Station Kelwada, District
Baran Raj.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Murari Lal Son Of Shri Lakshman, Resident Of Balda,
Police Station Kelwada, District Baran, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (6 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1793/2024
1. Kaushal Kishor Suman S/o Shri Hemraj Suman, R/o
Bhagwanpura, Mangrol District Baran, Rajasthan.
2. Sharad Sharma S/o Shri Rambabu Sharma, R/o Shri Ji
Chowk, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran,
Rajasthan.
3. Pramod Jain Bhaya S/o Shri Ummaid Mal Jain, Aged
About 58 Years, R/o Shriji Chowk, Police Station Kotwali
Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan.
4. Ankit Boradiya Jain S/o Shri Ashok Jain, R/o Jain Colony,
Old Civil Lines, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District
Baran, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. Shri Om Prakash Nagar S/o Shri Ram Karan Ji, Aged
About 45 Years, R/o Itawa Road, Mangrol District Baran,
Rajasthan
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1794/2024
1. Dharmendra Yadav S/o Shri Mangal Singh Aheer, R/o
Dheemar Mohalla, Shahbad, District Baran, Rajasthan.
2. Chitranjan Pathak @ Bholu S/o Shri Rajendra Pathak,
Aged About 45 Years, R/o Old Thana Road, Kelwada,
District Baran Raj.
3. Kaushal Kishor Rathor S/o Shri Nand Lal Rathore, R/o
Opposite Hospital, Kelwada, Police Station Kelwada,
District Baran Raj.
4. Pradeep Kabra S/o Shri Magan Lal Kabra, Aged About 57
Years, R/o Fathepur, Tehsil Baran, District Baran Raj.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Shri Manak Chand S/o Shri Mitthu Lal Mahajan, R/o
Kelwada, District Baran, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (7 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1939/2024
1. Kaushal Kishor Rathor Son Of Shri Nand Lal Rathore,
Resident Of Opposite Hospital, Kelwada, Police Station
Kelwada, District Baran Raj.
2. Rajaram Son Of Shri Mathura Lal Sahariya, Resident Of
Ghensua Khanda Sahrol, District Baran, Rajasthan,
Presently Posted At Gram Panchayat Shahbad District
Baran, Raj.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Shri Lalit Meena Son Of Shri Hemraj Meena, Resident Of
College Road, Police Station Kotwali Baran District Baran,
Rajasthan. At Present Member Of Rajasthan Legislative
Assembly From Kishanganj Constituency Of Baran
District.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 2566/2024
Vishnu Garg S/o Duli Chand Garg, Aged About 60 Years, R/o
Choumukha Bazar, Baran, Baran, Rajasthan-325205
—-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
—-Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 2988/2024
1. Kamal Soni Son Of Shri Ramkunwar Soni, Aged About 55
Years, Resident Of 17 And 18 C Block, New Nakoda
Colony, Baran District Baran, Rajasthan.
2. Smt. Urmila Jain Wife Of Shri Pramo Jain Bhaya, Aged
About 55 Years, Resident Of Shriji Chowk, Police Station
Kotwali Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan.
3. Pramod Jain Bhaya Son Of Shri Ummaid Mal Jain, Aged
About 58 Years, Resident Of Shriji Chowk, Police Station
Kotwali Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan.
4. Kailash Paras Son Of Shri Gopal Lal, Aged About 64 Years,
Resident Of Jag Jeevan Ram Colony, Baran, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (8 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
5. Gautam Kumar Jain Son Of Shri Panna Lal Jain, Aged
About 55 Years, Resident Of Jain Colony, Old Civil Lines,
Baran Rajasthan.
6. Satish Kumar Goyal Son Of Shri Ram Chandra Goyal,
Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Harizan Basti, Near
Punjabi Sabha Bhawan, Baran, Rajasthan
7. Radhey Shayam Rathor Son Of Shri Badri Lal Rathor,
Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of Pirnice Colony, Back
Side Of Hindustan Metal, Dayanand Colony, Baran,
Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Shri Vijay Piplani Son Of Shri Badri Lal Piplani, Resident
Of Krishna Colony, Baran District Baran, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 3271/2024
1. Naresh Sharma Son Of Shri Janki Prasad Sharma,
Resident Of 79A, Raj Nagar Bazariya, Sawaimadhopur,
District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
2. Sharad Sharma Son Of Shri Rambabu Sharma, Resident
Of Shri Ji Chowk, Police Station Kotwali Baran, District
Baran, Rajasthan.
3. Rohit Sharma @ Bittu Sharma Son Of Shri Satya Narayan
Sharma, Resident Of Near Sunaro Ka Nohra, Choumukha
Bazar, Baran, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Shri Kamal Rathore Son Of Shri Dhanna Lal, Aged About
35 Years, Resident Of Rajpura Ward , Satsang Bhawan
Road, Baran, District Baran.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 3545/2024
Visnu Garg Son Of Shri Duli Chand Garg, Aged About 60 Years,
Resident Of Choumukha Bazar, Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan
—-Petitioner
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (9 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Shri Kamal Rathore Son Of Shri Dhanna Lal, Aged About
35 Years, Resident Of Rajpura Ward, Satsang Bhawan
Road, Baran, District Baran.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 3584/2024
Manak Chand Son Of Shri Mitthulal Sain, Aged About 50 Years,
Resident Of Kelwada, District Baran Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Adovocate General
Rajasthan.
2. Investigation Officer Maan Singh, Sub Inspector Police
Station Kailawada, Baran.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 3985/2024
1. Vishnu Garg Son Of Shri Duli Chand, Aged About 60
Years, Resident Of Maladevi Mohalla, Chaumukha Bazar,
Baran, Rajasthan.
2. Manju Grg Wife Of Shri Vishnu Garg, Aged About 56
Years, Resident Of Maladevi Mohalla, Chaumukha Bazar,
Baran, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Shri Anil Kumar Gupta Son Of Shri Mohan Lal Gupta,
Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Bapji Nagar, Baran,
Presently Posted As Principal Government Senior
Secondary School, Sundlak (Peeo), Baran, District Baran
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 4234/2024
Rinkle Gupta W/o Shridharam Chand Gupta, Aged About 33
Years, R/o House No.16, Sector-1, In Front Of Hanuman Temple,
Mahaveer Nagar Vistar, Kota, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (10 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Vijay Piplani S/o Shribadrilalpiplani, R/o Krishna Colony,
Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 4477/2024
Pramod Jain Bhaya Son Of Shri Ummaid Mal Jain, Aged About 58
Years, Resident Of Shriji Chowk, Police Station Kotwali Baran,
District Baran, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Shri Shiv Raj Mahawar Son Of Shri Ram Dayal Mahawar,
Resident Of Karni Kunj Vihar Colony, Atru Road, Baran,
Rajasthan.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Jaya Mitra
Mr. Veerendra Singh
Mr. Rajendra Sharma
Mr. Rahul Tiwari
Ms. Simran Bharti for
Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Sharma, AAG with
Ms. Pooja Sharma
Mr. S.M. Sharma
Mr. Naman Pareek, ASAGC
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Bairwa
Mr. Omendra Singh, Dy. S.P., Baran
Mr. Manish Gupta
Mr. Avtar Singh Rathore,
Mr. Shiv Lal Meena
Ms. Ayushi Shrivastava for
Mr. DK Shrivastava
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
Reserved on :: 29/04/2025
Pronounced on :: 1 /05/2025
REPORTABLE :
1. Since the instant batch of petitions raises common
questions of law and fact, and in view of the consent accorded by
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (11 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, all the
petitions are being heard conjointly and are being disposed of by
means of this common judgment, to avoid multiplicity of
proceedings and to ensure judicial economy.
2. The principal as well as incidental reliefs sought by the
petitioners in the present set of petitions relate to the issuance of
appropriate directions for consolidation and joint investigation of
all thirteen First Information Reports (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘impugned FIRs’). The petitioners have prayed that the said
FIRs be clubbed and the investigation thereof be entrusted to a
single investigative agency functioning under the supervision of an
Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, who is posted in any district of
the State of Rajasthan, excluding the districts of Baran and
Jhalawar. The petitioners have further prayed that any additional
FIRs, if registered in connection with the same subject matter, be
also transferred to and investigated by the said authority to
ensure consistency and impartiality in the investigation process.
3. In the alternative and/or additionally, the petitioners
have invoked the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now corresponding to
Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023),
seeking quashing of the impugned FIRs along with all
consequential proceedings arising therefrom. It is contended that
the FIRs in question are registered on vague, indefinite, and
unsubstantiated allegations, and are founded upon mere
conjectures and assumptions, thereby constituting an abuse of the
process of law.
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (12 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
SUBMISSIONS BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON
BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS :-
4. Learned Senior Counsel Shri Madhav Mitra, ably
assisted by learned counsel Ms. Jaya Mitra along with Shri
Rajendra Sharma, Shri Rahul Tiwari, and other counsel appearing,
submitted on that the present batch of petitions arises out of a
common factual backdrop pertaining to a former Member of the
Legislative Assembly (MLA), who has previously held the portfolios
of Minister of Mines, Petroleum, and Gopalan in the State of
Rajasthan.
5. It was contended that immediately after the conclusion
of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Elections, 2023, and
consequent to the petitioner being unsuccessful therein and no
longer being affiliated with the ruling political party, a series of
FIRs came to be registered against him, his relatives, friends, and
associates. It was alleged that these FIRs were lodged with a
political motive and under the influence of the newly elected ruling
party. The petitioners have placed on record the material
particulars of the said FIRs, which are reproduced herein for the
sake of brevity.
S.No. Case No. with FIR No. Police Sections Name of Status
title Station Complainant
1. S.B. Criminal 05/2024 Kishanganj 384, 386, Tola Ram S/o Under
Misc. Petition (Baran) 379, 327, Mohan Lal investigation
No.7852/202 413, 447,
4 Hussain 427, 504,
Mohammad 506 &
Vs. State 120B of
IPC and
Section
4/21 Mines
and
Minerals
Act, 1957
and
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (13 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
Section
3(1)(f),
3(1)(g) of
SC/ST Act
1989
2 S.B. Criminal 02/2024 Anta (Baran) 420, 406, Rameshwar Prima facie
Misc. Petition 467, 468, Khandelwal proved.
No.266/2024 471 & S/o Shri Mool Interim
Pramod Jain 120B IPC Chand Gupta order
Bhaya
Vs. State
3 S.B. Criminal 08/2024 Kotwali 420, 384, Dilip Under
Misc. Petition Baran 413, 426, Shakyawal investigation
No.312/2024 379 & S/o Sh.
Ankit Bordiya 120B of Durga
Vs. State IPC Shankar
Shakyawal
4 S.B. Criminal 05/2024 Kishanganj 384, 386, Tola Ram Under
Misc. Petition (Baran) 379, 327, S/o Mohan investigation
No.321/2024 413, 447, Lal Interim
Chiranjan 427, 504, order
Pathak Vs. 506 &
State 120B of
IPC and
Section
4/21 Mines
and
Minerals
Act, 1957
and
Section
3(1)(f),
3(1)(g) of
SC/ST Act
1989
5 S.B. Criminal 02/2024, Anta, Under
Writ Petition 08/2024, Kotwali investigation
No.1102/202 05/2024, Baran,
4 Pramod Jain 54/2024, Kishanganj,
Bhaya Vs. 57/2024, Kelwara,
State 60/2024, Kelwara
75/2024, Mangorl,
268/202 Kelwara,
4, Kotwali
271/202 Baran,
4, Kotwali
272/202 Baran,
4, Kotwali
204/202 Baran, Anta,
4, Anta,
205/202 Mangrol
4,
205/202
3
6 S.B. Criminal 08/2024 Kotwali 420, 384, Dilip Under
Misc. Petition Baran 413, 426, Shakyawal investigation
No.1417/202 379 & S/o Sh.
4 Pramod Jain 120B of Durga
Bhaya Vs. IPC Shankar
State Shakyawa
7 S.B. Criminal 02/2024 Anta (Baran) 420, 406, Rameshwar Prima facie
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (14 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
Misc. Petition 467, 468, Khandelwal proved.
No.1484/202 471 & S/o Shri Mool Interim
4 Pramod Jain 120B IPC Chand Gupta order
Bhaya Vs.
State
8 S.B. Criminal 57/2024 Kelwara 384, 420, Murari Lal Under
Misc. Petition 406 & 34 S/o Shri investigation
No.1719/202 IPC Lakshman
4 Chitranjan
Pathak Vs.
State
9 S.B. Criminal 60/2024 Mangrol 420, 467, Om Prakash Under
Misc. Petition (Baran) 468 & Nagar S/o investigation
No.1793/202 120B IPC Sh. Ram
4 Pramod Jain Karan
Bhaya Vs.
State
10 S.B. Criminal 54/2024 Kelwara 420, 406, Manak Chand Under
Misc. Petition 467, 468, S/o investigation
No.1794/202 471 IPC Shri Mitthu
4 Lal Mahajan
Dharmendra
Yadav Vs.
State
11 S.B. Criminal 75/2024 Kelwara 448, 379 & Lalit Meena Under
Misc. Petition 34 IPC and S/o Sh. investigation
No.1939/202 Section 3 Hemraj . Interim
4 Kaushal of Meena order
Kishore Prevention
Rathore Vs. of Damage
State to Public
Property
Act
12 S.B. Criminal 271/202 Kotwali 384 & 34 Kamal Under
Misc. Petition 4 Baran IPC Rathore S/o investigation
No.2566/202 Shri Dhanna
4 Vishnu Lal
Garg Vs.
State
13 S.B. Criminal 272/202 Kotwali 420, 409, Vijay Piplani Under
Misc. Petition 4 Baran 467, 468, S/o Shri investigation
No.2988/202 471 and Badri Lal
4 Smt. Urmila 120B IPC Piplani
Jain Vs. State
14 S.B. Criminal 271/202 Kotwali 384 & 34 Kamal Prima facie
Misc. Petition 4 Baran IPC Rathore S/o proved
No.3271/202 Shri Dhanna
4 Naresh Lal
Sharma Vs.
State
15 S.B. Criminal 268/202 Kotwali 341, 323, Kamal Under
Misc. Petition 4 Baran 34, 506, Rathore S/o investigation
No.3545/202 382 and Shri Dhanna
4 Vishnu 120 IPC Lal
Garg Vs.
State
16 S.B. Criminal 54/2024 Kelwara 420, 406, Man Singh, Under
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (15 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
Misc. Petition 467, 468, Dy. Inspector investigation
No.3584/202 471 IPC of Police,
4 Manak Kelwara and
Chand Vs. IO
State
17 S.B. Criminal 179/202 Baran Sadar 420, 409 & Anil Kumar Prima facie
Misc. Petition 4 34 IPC Gupta S/o proved
No.3985/202 Shri Mohan
4 Vishnu Lal Gupta
Garg Vs.
State
18 S.B. Criminal 272/202 Kotwali 420, 409, Vijay Piplani Under
Misc. Petition 4 Baran 467, 468, S/o Shri investigation
No.4234/202 471 & Badri Lal
4 Rinkle 120B IPC Piplani
Gupta Vs.
State
19 S.B. Criminal 509/202 Kotwali 420, 409, Shivraj Prima facie
Misc. Petition 4 Baran 467, 468, Mahawar, proved
No.4477/202 471, 408, Bhuwnesh
4 Pramod Jain 379, 471, Soni and
Bhaya Vs. 201, 120B Jitendra
State IPC Suman
6. Elaborating upon the political context, learned counsel
submitted that following the change in government in the State of
Rajasthan, members and supporters of the ruling party allegedly
began misusing state machinery to target and harass prominent
opposition leaders, including their friends, supporters, and family
members. It was contended that shortly after the formation of the
new government, in the early part of the year 2024, a sequence of
FIRs began to be registered one after another, implicating several
persons affiliated with the opposition party. It was further
submitted that a bare reading of the contents of the FIRs reveals
that they are based on vague, absurd, and improbable allegations,
and that the registration of such FIRs has been actuated by mala
fides. The complainants in most of the FIRs are alleged to be
supporters of the ruling party, who are in a position of influence
over the local police authorities.
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (16 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
7. In light of the foregoing, learned counsel submitted
that there exists a genuine apprehension in the minds of the
petitioners that the investigation in these matters shall neither be
fair nor impartial. It was contended that the investigating agencies
are under undue influence and are unlikely to act independently or
in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed
that, considering the politically motivated nature of the FIRs,
either the said FIRs be quashed in exercise of this Court’s inherent
jurisdiction, or alternatively, necessary directions be issued for
clubbing and consolidating the impugned FIRs, directing that a
unified investigation be conducted by an officer of the Indian
Police Service (IPS), posted in any district of Rajasthan other than
Baran and Jhalawar. It was further prayed that any additional FIRs
that may be registered in future in connection with the same
cause of action may also be investigated by the said authority.
8. By way of illustration, learned counsel submitted that in
FIR No. 5/2024 registered at Police Station Kishanganj (Baran) for
offences under sections 384, 386, 379, 327, 413, 447, 427, 504,
506 & 120B of IPC and Section 4/21 of Mines and Minerals Act,
1957 and Section 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, the
complainant is one Tolaram, who is himself alleged to be a
habitual offender involved in illegal mining activities. It was
submitted that the said FIR lacks specific details with respect to
date, time, or nature of the alleged incident, and is based on
vague, unsubstantiated assertions. Despite the lack of clarity and
specificity, the FIR was registered nearly one and a half years after
the alleged incidents.
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (17 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
9. In FIR No. 2/2024 dated 01.01.2024 registered at
Police Station Anta (Baran) for offences under Sections 420, 406,
467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC, it is submitted that the complainant,
Rameshwar Khandelwal, is a known political figure associated with
the ruling party. The allegations therein pertain to the alleged
manipulation of tender processes by the petitioner – Ex-MLA,
purportedly in collusion with the Chairman of the Municipal
Corporation, involving alleged irregularities and economic
offences. However, learned counsel contended that the said FIR is
founded on vague assertions, without any specific allegation or
supporting evidence, and is premised on a concocted narrative. It
was further submitted that the tenders in question were
subsequently cancelled, thereby indicating lack of any criminal
intent or wrongdoing.
10. Similarly, with respect to FIR No. 272/2024 dated
02.04.2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran for offences
under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC, learned
counsel submitted that the complainant therein belongs to the
ruling party and lodged the FIR against the petitioner’s wife, Mrs.
Urmila Jain, just one day prior to the date scheduled for filing of
nomination papers for an election in Baran and Jhalawar. The
allegations pertain to issuance of pattas and possession letters
over land purportedly reserved for public use, allegedly issued
after a delay of ten years without appropriate explanation. It was
submitted that the timing and nature of the allegations clearly
suggest political vendetta.
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (18 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
11. In FIR No. 271/2024 dated 02.04.2024 registered at
Police Station Kotwali Baran for offences under Sections 384 & 34
of IPC, the complainant is one Shri Kamal Rathore, an Ex-
Chairman of the Municipal Council, who is himself facing multiple
criminal cases. It is alleged that he has lodged the said FIR based
on a concocted and implausible story. Learned counsel submitted
that similar allegations and submissions apply to the remaining
FIRs as well.
12. In support of the submissions made insofar, learned
counsel placed reliance upon a catena of judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, including Iqbal @ Bala & Ors. Vs. State of UP
and Ors.: 2023 (8) SCC 734; State of Haryana vs. Bhajan
Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Haji Iqbal @ Bala through
S.P.O.A. vs. State of U.P. and ors. (2023) AIR (SC) 3964;
Mahmood Ali and Ors. vs. State of UP and Ors.: Criminal
Appeal No.2341/2023 decided on 08.08.2023; Amitbhai
Anilchandra Shah vs. CBI and Anr.: 2013(6) SCC 348 and
T.T. Antony vs. State of Kerala: 2001(6) SCC 181 to submit
that multiple FIRs on the same facts against the same individual,
particularly arising from political rivalry, are impermissible in law
and liable to be quashed.
13. Relying especially upon the decision in Bhajan Lal
(supra), it was submitted that if an FIR is registered with
malafide intent and where the contents do not disclose any prima
facie cognizable offence, and the allegations are vague, absurd,
and improbable, the same is liable to be quashed under the
inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (19 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
14. Learned counsel contended that in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the legal principles enunciated
in the aforementioned precedents are squarely applicable. It was
asserted that the impugned FIRs lack substance, are politically
motivated, and do not inspire any confidence.
15. Finally, it was submitted that permitting the
continuance of investigation and prosecution pursuant to such
FIRs would be manifestly unjust, frivolous, and vexatious. It was
argued that in such cases, it is the duty of the Court to exercise
caution and circumspection while examining the contents of the
FIRs and, if satisfied that no prima facie offence is made out, to
quash the same in the interest of justice.
SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
RESPONDENT-STATE AND COMPLAINANTS :-
16. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General, Shri
Manoj Sharma, appearing on behalf of respondent-State, along
with learned counsel for the complainant, Shri Manish Gupta, and
other assisting counsels, vehemently opposed the petitions filed
by the petitioners. It was contended that the reliefs sought by the
petitioners are inherently contradictory and mutually inconsistent
in nature. On one hand, the petitioners have prayed for quashing
of the impugned FIRs while on the other, they have simultaneously
sought the clubbing of FIRs and a unified investigation. Such
inconsistent pleas, cannot be entertained by the Court as they are
procedurally and jurisprudentially incompatible.
17. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned
FIRs were registered on the basis of distinct and independent
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (20 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
causes of action, each involving different complainants, factual
matrix, and offences. The nature of allegations ranges across a
wide spectrum including, inter alia, illegal mining operations,
forging documents related to Nagar Nigam, illegal allotment and
sale of public land through fabricated pattas, and financial
misappropriation in collusion with relatives posted in the Education
Department. As such, each FIR is founded on different sets of
allegations, and therefore, the plea for clubbing of FIRs is legally
untenable.
18. It was further contended that the FIRs were registered
at different police stations across different territorial jurisdictions,
on varying dates, and concern unalike transactions, witnesses,
and evidence. Therefore, the doctrine of sameness, proximity, or
continuity, which may in certain circumstances justify a joint or
consolidated investigation, does not apply in the present context.
Nevertheless, from both a legal and practical standpoint, the
clubbing of FIRs is impermissible in the facts and circumstances of
the present case.
19. The respondents also argued that although the
petitioners have prayed for a fair and impartial investigation by an
IPS officer and for the transfer of the investigation outside the
jurisdictions of Baran and Jhalawar districts, the petitions are
conspicuously silent on any specific allegations of malafides
against any individual Investigating Officer/Police Officer. No
specific incident or factual basis is pleaded to demonstrate bias,
partiality, or misconduct on the part of any police officer involved
in the ongoing investigations. In the absence of such specific
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (21 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
averments in the petition, the prayer for transfer of investigation
is unwarranted.
20. Consecutively, it was submitted that despite the
protection granted by interim orders of “no coercive action” by the
Court, the petitioners have abstained themselves from joining
investigation and rendering cooperation thereto. It was
emphasized that in some of the FIRs, the investigation is at a
progressive, nascent stage, while in others, it is nearing
conclusion, and in such circumstances the non-cooperation of the
petitioners, under the shield of interim protection, is hampering
and obstructing the lawful investigation process.
21. Learned counsel further submitted that there exists an
efficacious and alternative remedy available under the Criminal
Procedure Code, whereby the petitioners could have approached
the authorities under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. (now section 173 of
B.N.S.S.) for redressal of grievances related to the investigation.
However, bypassing the statutory remedy, the petitioners have
directly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Section 428 of Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 of B.N.S.S.) and Article
226 of the Constitution of India which is impermissible in law
without exhausting the alternative remedies available under the
statute as available under the provisions of Section 210 Cr.P.C.
(now Section 233 of B.N.S.S.).
22. It was also argued that the petitioners cannot, as a
matter of right, dictate the manner in which an investigation
should be conducted or demand that a specific Investigating
Officer of their preference be appointed. The prerogative to
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (22 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
determine the composition of the investigating team lies solely
with the investigating agency, which is guided by statutory
provisions and administrative considerations. The investigating
authorities are already conducting a detailed inquiry, which
includes recording of statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,
collection of documentary and scientific evidence, and
interrogation of the concerned parties. It was submitted that the
Court ought not to take a microscopic or speculative view at this
preliminary and nascent stage of investigation or interfere with the
procedural autonomy of the investigating agency based merely on
unsubstantiated apprehensions or assumptions of the petitioners.
23. In support of the afore-stated contentions, learned
counsel placed reliance on various authoritative pronouncements
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia Surendra Kaushik v.
State of U.P., (2013) 5 SCC 148; Ramveer Upadhyay v.
State of U.P., (2022 SCC OnLine SC 484); T.T. Antony v.
State of Kerala and ors., (2001) 6 SCC 181; Sakiri Vasu Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and ors., (2008) 2 SCC 409; and
Romila Thapar and ors. Vs. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC
753.
24. In light of the foregoing submissions, it was prayed that
the writ petitions filed by the petitioners be dismissed with
exemplary costs. It was further prayed that the interim orders
earlier granted by the Court, which are obstructing the progress of
investigation due to the petitioners’ continued non-cooperation, be
vacated forthwith to enable the investigating agency to proceed
unimpeded in accordance with law.
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (23 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS :-
25. Having heard the rival arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for all the parties, upon a perusal of the material
available on record, scanning the judgments cited at the Bar and
juxtaposing the contentions noted herein above, this Court at the
outset deems it apposite to jot down the indubitable qua the
present batch of petitions:
25.1 That one of the petitioners i.e. Shri Pramod Jain Bhaya,
is a former Member of the Legislative Assembly and an erstwhile
Cabinet Minister in the State Government, who faced an electoral
defeat in the year 2023.
25.2 That subsequent to his exit from public office, a series
of FIRs were lodged by various complainants across multiple
jurisdictions alleging grave offences such as criminal forgery,
financial misappropriation, fabrication of public records, and illegal
mining activities, issuance of forged pattas purportedly committed
by the petitioner in connivance with his close relatives, friends,
and supporters holding influential positions.
26. While learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that
the registration of these FIRs is inordinately delayed and actuated
by ulterior motives, the learned Additional Advocate General has
countered by submitting that during the petitioner’s incumbency
as a Cabinet Minister, owing to his political stature and influence,
the complainants were unable to approach the authorities or have
their grievances redressed. In such circumstances, lying emphasis
on the famous saying – vigilantibus non dormientibus jura
subveniunt meaning that the law aids the vigilant, not those who
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (24 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]slumber on their rights, it is deduced that the complainants at the
most possible juncture have lodged the FIRs and the delay in
lodging of FIRs, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing,
particularly when the allegations pertain to serious economic
offences. In this regard reliance is placed upon the ratio
encapsulated in Dinesh Sharma vs. Emgee Cables and
Communication Ltd. And anr. @ SLP (Crl.) No. 10744-
10745/2023 (2025 INSC 571).
“23. A profitable reference can be made to the case of
Parbatbhai Ahir v. State of Gujrat and Anr. 2017 (9)
SCC 641wherein it was observed that economic
offences by their very nature lie beyond the domain of
mere dispute between private parties and the High
Court would be justified in declining to quash where the
offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or
economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of
the act complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance. Thus, it can be
concluded that economic offences by their very nature
stand on a different footing than other offences and
have wider ramifications. They constitute a class apart.
Economic offences affect the economy of the country as
a whole and pose a serious threat to the financial
health of the country. If such offences are viewed
lightly, the confidence and trust of the public will be
shaken.
24. It is true that there is a growing tendency of parties
to rope in their counterparts to harass and extract
monetary transaction, it is the duty of the Court to
consider the facts of each case, in its proper
perspective and then to arrive at the conclusion as to
whether the case warrants investigation or the
proceedings are required to be quashed. The peculiar
facts and circumstances of the present case warrants
thorough investigation as there was a huge amount
involved. As we have already stated that when the
petitioner approached the High Court for quashing of
the FIR, the investigation was at its initial stage and
subsequent to filing of the present Special Leave
Petition in this Court it seems that the investigation
was concluded by filing the chargesheet.”
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (25 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
27. A careful perusal of the record reveals that the
impugned FIRs are registered, each concerning distinct and
independent allegations, involving different witnesses, different
documents, and separate causes of action. These FIRs are not
interconnected by a common thread of fact, transaction, or
occurrence. Hence, the doctrine of sameness as enunciated in
Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (Supra) and Surendra Kaushik
(Supra) is not applicable. The legal threshold of nexus inter se or
res gestae, a continuing transaction forming one chain of events is
not satisfied. Further, it is noteworthy that only those FIRs can be
clubbed together which arise out of same transaction and when
the ‘test of sameness’ is proved, however, in the matter in hand
the allegations leveled in the FIRs per se makes it unambiguous
that they do not arise out of the same transaction. Therefore, the
prayer for clubbing of FIRs is without legal foundation and is
accordingly rejected.
28. In light of the above, this Court finds no merit in the
submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for
clubbing of FIRs or conducting a joint investigation. The cause of
action being distinct, and the offences being registered at different
police stations involving separate incidents. Moreover, it is a
settled principle of law that actus separat, jus separate meaning
separate acts create separate legal rights and liabilities.
29. As regards the petitioner’s prayer for transfer of
investigation and for entrusting the same to a single high-ranking
IPS officer to ensure fairness, it is pertinent to note that the
petitions do not allege any specific malafides or bias against any
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (26 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
named Investigating Officer. No concrete incident, act, or omission
is brought on record, nor have the concerned officers been
impleaded as parties to the proceedings. The law requires that for
an allegation of malafide to be sustained, it must be pleaded with
specificity and supported by material facts. In the absence of
mens rea, or a demonstrable element of ill-intention, such a
prayer cannot be entertained. Furthermore, it is also noted that
several Investigating Officers have since been transferred or
reassigned. No representation appears to be made to the higher
police authorities, and no formal complaint against the
investigation process is on record.
30. As per the settled principles laid down in the ratio
encapsulated in the judgment of Romila Thapar (Supra), the
accused has no locus standi to dictate or choose the Investigating
Officer, unless the process is vitiated by apparent bias or illegality.
The right to fair investigation is sacrosanct, but it does not imply
the right to tailor or manipulate the course of investigation. The
relevant extract from the afore-relied judgment is reproduced
herein below:
“30. In view of the above, it is clear that the
consistent view of this Court is that the Accused
cannot ask for changing the Investigating Agency
or to do investigation in a particular manner
including for Court monitored investigation. The
first two modified reliefs claimed in the writ petition, if
they were to be made by the Accused themselves, the
same would end up in being rejected. In the present
case, the original writ petition was filed by the persons
claiming to be the next friends of the concerned
Accused (A16 to A20). Amongst them, Sudha Bhardwaj
(A19), Varvara Rao (A16), Arun Ferreira (A18) and
Vernon Gonsalves (A17) have filed signed statements
praying that the reliefs claimed in the subject writ
petition be treated as their writ petition. That(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (27 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]application deserves to be allowed as the Accused
themselves have chosen to approach this Court and
also in the backdrop of the preliminary objection raised
by the State that the writ Petitioners were completely
strangers to the offence under investigation and the
writ petition at their instance was not maintainable. We
would, therefore, assume that the writ petition is now
pursued by the Accused themselves and once they
have become Petitioners themselves, the question of
next friend pursuing the remedy to espouse their cause
cannot be countenanced. The next friend can continue
to espouse the cause of the affected Accused as long as
the concerned Accused is not in a position or
incapacitated to take recourse to legal remedy and not
otherwise.”
(Emphasis laid)
31. Nevertheless, the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SB
Criminal Petition No. 867/2024 titled as Manju Garg v. State
of Rajasthan, vide order dated 20.04.2024, has held that the
nature and gravity of allegations, involving public exchequer fraud,
misuse of official capacity, and systemic collusion, warrant an
unimpeded and full-fledged investigation. The Court cannot enter
into a roving enquiry or undertake a microscopic evaluation of the
factual matrix at the pre-trial stage. The relevant extract from the
said dictum is reiterated herein below:
“6. This Court finds that allegations levelled against the
petitioner in the impugned FIR are of serious nature
and constitute commission of cognizable offence.
Whether allegations made in the FIR against the
petitioner are correct, genuine or true, is subject
matter of investigation and the plea sought to betaken
by the petitioner before this Court in respect of
explaining her absent in the school at the time of
inspection and deputation of alleged dummy teachers,
by the School Management Samiti and not by the
petitioner, can also be considered by the Investigating
Officer. At this stage, without investigation of
allegations made in the FIR, it cannot be said that
involvement of petitioner in the present FIR is
improbable or allegations have been levelled
manifestly attended with mala fides, with an ulterior(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (28 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]motive either for wreaking vengeance or to settle
personal grudges. It cannot be held that if allegations
made in the FIR are taken on their face value, they do
not prima facie constitute any offence or do not make
out a case against the petitioner.
7. The contours of powers to quash the criminal
proceedings by the High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are well defined in various judgments passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In case of V. Ravi
Kumar Vs. State [(2019)14 SCC 568], the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that it is wholly impermissible for
the High Court to enter into the factual arena to
adjudge the correctness of allegations made in the
complaint.
8. In case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
State of Maharashtra, [2021 SCC OnLine SC 315], the
Apex Court elaborately considered the scope and extent
of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It was observed
that the power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare
cases. It was further observed that while examining the
FIR/ complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court
cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of allegations made therein.
The parameters laid down by the Apex Court in
celebrated judgments delivered in cases of R.P. Kapur
vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1960SC 866]and State of
Haryana Vs. Choudhary Bhajan Lal[1992 Supp. (1) SCC
335]have been reiterated.”
32. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to accept the
contention that the FIRs are baseless or actuated by malafides,
nor does it find sufficient grounds to exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) to quash
the same where allegations are yet to be tested by a full and fair
investigation.
33. The respondents’ submission that the petitioner has
alternative efficacious remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3),
200 and 210 Cr.P.C. is well-taken. It is settled law, as held in
Bhajan Lal (supra) and Sakiri Vasu (Supra), that the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should not
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (29 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
be exercised when statutory remedies remain unexhausted. The
relevant extract from the ratio enunciated in Sakiri Vasu (Supra)
is reiterated herein below:
“27.As we have already observed above, the Magistrate
has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR
and to ensure a proper investigation and for this
purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that
the investigation is done properly (Though he cannot
investigate himself). The High Court should discourage
the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a
grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the
Police, or after being registered, proper investigation
has not been done by the Police. For this grievance, the
remedy lies under Section 36 and 154(3) before the
Police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail,
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or
by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
34. Nevertheless, the reliance placed by the learned
counsel for the petitioners upon the ratio enunciated in Arnab
Goswami Vs. Union of India and ors. : (2020) 14 SCC 51
and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah (Supra), is untenable as
therein, the FIRs so clubbed were arising out of ‘same
transactions’; that the petitioners herein have approached at a
nascent juncture and in the relied upon dictums the factual
narrative is distinguishable, as therein the petitioners had
approached at the stage of filing of charge-sheet.
35. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that the
pleas raised by the petitioner are not only premature but also
legally unsustainable. Therefore, while taking note of the legal
principle fiat justitia ruat caelum meaning let justice be done
though the heavens fall; the allegations, involving suspected
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (30 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
large-scale forgery, embezzlement, and abuse of official position,
implicating various public departments and functionaries, this
Court is of the view that the FIRs in question demand a thorough
and unhampered investigation which is already at a full swing in
the instant matter.
CONCLUSION:-
36. In view of the foregoing discussion and in consonance
with the settled legal principles:
36.1 The prayer for quashing of FIRs is hereby rejected,
primarily on the ground of contradictory and mutually exclusive
reliefs prayed for by the petitioner–seeking both a unified fair
investigation and simultaneous quashing, which are legally
irreconcilable.
36.2 The prayer for transfer of investigation to a single IPS-
ranked officer is also rejected, as the petitioner cannot claim such
a privilege in the absence of any demonstrated mala fide,
particularly when the FIRs relate to different transactions, filed at
different locations involving separate investigating agencies.
37. However, considering the interest of justice and the
principle of audi alteram partem, the petitioners are directed to
cooperate and join the investigation in each FIR within a period of
ten days from the date of pronouncement of this judgment. The
Investigating Authorities are directed to ensure that the
investigation is conducted fairly, impartially, and strictly in
accordance with law, taking into account the defense submissions,
documents, and materials produced by the petitioners, to unearth
the complete and truthful facts.
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:18361] (31 of 31) [CRLMP-7852/2024]
38. In view of the above, the instant batch of petitions
being bereft of any merits stand dismissed. No orders are made as
to costs. All pending applications, including stay applications, if
any, stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Preeti Asopa
(Downloaded on 23/05/2025 at 11:17:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)