[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rampal Soni vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:32139) on 22 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:32139]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4581/2025
Rampal Soni S/o Bhagwati Lal Soni, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Shalibhadra Complex, Samta Nagar, Bedla, Udaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ms Suman Banjara D/o Mr Prabhu Lal Banjara, Aged
About 20 Years, Resident Of House No 38, C-Block, Sector
14, Savina, Hiran Magri, Udaipur Rajasthan
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 301/2025
Mahin Jain S/o Mr. Anil Jain, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Sector
14, Savina, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ms. Suman Banjara D/o Mr. Prabhu Lal Banjara, R/o
House No. 38, C Block, Sector 14, Savina, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. Sharwan Kumar Bishnoi for
Mr. Deepak Menaria for Complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
22/07/2025
1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 528 BNSS
(Section 428 Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the petitioners for
quashing of the FIR No.0456/2024 registered at Police Station
Savina, District Udaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 384,
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32139] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4581/2025]
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material as made available to this Court as well as gone through
the niceties of the matter.
3. A perusal of the FIR indicates that as per the victim, the
co-accused Anurag Vashishth, with whom she was having old
acquaintance, in the year 2023, forwarded her certain morphed
obscene photographs and by threatening to viral the same,
started extorting money from her. As per the FIR, the petitioners –
and co-accused Anurag Vashishth connived with each other and
extorted more than Rs.4-5 lacs from the victim. In order to
arrange the money to pay the petitioners, the victim had to stole
gold ornaments from her house.
4. The factual report dated 20.7.2024 received by learned
Public Prosecutor from the office of SHO PS Savina, Udaipur
indicates that during the course of investigation, the police has
procured bank statements of accused persons which indicate that
the petitioners have received different amount from the victim on
various occasions. The co-accused Anurag Vashishth who has
already been arrested by the investigating agency during
interrogation, has disclosed that the petitioners had played an
active role in commission of the alleged crime.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the impugned
FIR discloses the commission of the cognizable offences against
the present petitioners and the police after making thorough
investigation in the matter has found the alleged offences to be
proved against the present petitioners, therefore, no case for
quashing of the FIR is made out.
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32139] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4581/2025]
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, while exercising
powers under Section 528 BNSS this Court cannot minutely go
into the correctness of the allegations levelled against the
petitioners. At this stage, this Court is neither expected to scan
the entire material available on record nor record its findings on
each of the charges levelled against the present petitioners.
7. 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
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.(528 BNSS) 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(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32139] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4581/2025]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.”
8. 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 (482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing the impugned FIR
qua the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, these criminal misc. petitions as well as stay
applications stand dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
38-39 TarunGoyal/-
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link