Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Amarjeet Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28177) on 1 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28177]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4593/2025
Amarjeet Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident
Of 1X, Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.
2. Jagdish Prasad S/o Hari Ram, Resident Of Dholipal,
Hanumangarh Sadar, District- Hanumangarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ratish Bhatnagar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. Om Prakash, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
01/07/2025
1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition, the
petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
“Therefore, it is most humbly and respectfully prayed
that this Criminal misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and:
1. The F.I.R. No. 142/2024, Police Station – Sri Karanpur,
District Sri Ganganagar and entire subsequent
proceedings therein may kindly be quashed and set
aside qua the petitioner to secure the ends of justice.”
2. Having gone through the impugned FIR, this Court prima
facie finds that the allegations levelled against the present
petitioner who is working with Aashirwad Micro Finance Limited
company includes fraud, misconduct, embezzlement, violation of
the policy of Micro Finance Company & unauthorized transactions
alongwith the co-accused and thus, the impugned FIR discloses
the commission of cognizable offences.
(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:42:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28177] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4593/2025]
3. In the opinion of this Court, since the FIR disclose the
commission of cognizable offences; thus, no case for quashing of
the FIR is made out.
4. 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 any
definite finding thereon.
5. Hon’ble the 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. Hon’ble
the Supreme 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
(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:42:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28177] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4593/2025]
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.”
6. In view of aforesaid discussion and since the contents of the
FIR prima facie disclose commission of the cognizable offences;
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 FIR in question qua the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition as well as stay
application stand dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
43-divya/-
(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:42:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)