Keshar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28438) on 2 July, 2025

0
1


Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Keshar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28438) on 2 July, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:28438]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                  S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4641/2025

1.          Keshar Singh S/o Shri Jujhar Singh Rathore, Aged About
            29 Years, R/o Bevta, Tharad, Banaskantha, Gujrat
2.          Shambhu Singh S/o Shri Pahad Singh, Aged About 30
            Years, R/o Bevta, Tharad, Banaskantha, Gujrat
3.          Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Mangal Singh, Aged About 21
            Years, R/o Bevta, Tharad, Banaskantha, Gujrat
4.          Mangal Singh S/o Shri Peer Singh, Aged About 60 Years,
            R/o Bevta, Tharad, Banaskantha, Gujrat
5.          Jograj Singh S/o Shri Karan Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
            R/o Bevta, Tharad, Banaskantha, Gujrat
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.          State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.          Sawroop Singh S/o Hadwant Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
            R/o Sajnani, Gadraroad, Barmer, District Barmer
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Surendra Bagmalani
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

02/07/2025

By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under

Section 528 BNSS, the petitioners have prayed for the following

reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully
prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be
allowed and quashed the entire proceedings in
Connection with FIR No.21/2025, dated 05.05.2025 of
Police Station Gadraroad, District Barmer, for offences
punishable under Section 189(2), 331(6), 115(2),
126(2), 140(3) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
the misc. petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be

(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:48:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28438] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4641/2025]

allowed in terms of the compromise between the
parties.

Any other relief, which your Lordships may deem
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this
case, may also kindly be issued in favour of the
petitioners.”

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent

No.2- Sawroop Singh lodged an impugned FIR against the present

petitioners alleging inter alia that on 01.04.2025, the petitioners

being heavily armed with blunt and sharp weapons came to his

house in a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-06-EQ-9312

and without any provocation from the complainant’s side, brutally

beat them and caused several injuries to them.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the

material available on record.

On a careful perusal of the impugned FIR, this Court prima

facie finds that the specific allegation of beating the complainant

with blunt weapons as levelled against the petitioners by the

complainant party discloses the commission of cognizable offence.

Thus, at this stage, no case for quashing of the FIR is made out.

This Court while exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS

cannot minutely go into the correctness of the allegations levelled

against the petitioners at this stage. This Court is not expected to

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

definitive finding on the contentions raised on behalf of the

petitioners, thereon.

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 02/07/2025 at 09:48:27 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28438] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4641/2025]

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 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
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 02/07/2025 at 09:48:27 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:28438] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4641/2025]

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 FIR in question qua the

petitioners.

Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is dismissed.

Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
41-himanshu/-

(Downloaded on 02/07/2025 at 09:48:27 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here