Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Kuldeep Singh Alias Kakki vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:25458) on 23 May, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:25458]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3236/2025
1. Kuldeep Singh Alias Kakki S/o Vichitra Singh, Aged About
47 Years, R/o Chack Hirasighwala, Sangariya, Dist.
Hanumangarh
2. Shubhkaran S/o Kuldeep Singh @ Kakki, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Chack Hirasinghwala, Sangariya, Dist.
Hanumangarh
3. Abhishek S/o Kuldeep Singh @ Kakki, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Chack Hirasinghwala, Sangariya, Dist.
Hanumangarh
4. Dhunu S/o Kuldeep Singh @ Kakki, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Chack Hirasinghwala, Sangariya, Dist. Hanumangarh
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Director General Of Police, Raj. Jaipur
3. Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner
4. Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh
5. The Station House Officer, P.s. Sangariya, Dist.
Hanumangarh
6. Kuldeep S/o Amarchand, R/o Ward No. 17, Dhaban,
Sangariya, Dist. Hanumangarh,raj.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2321/2025
Kuldeep Singh Alias Kakki S/o Nakshatra Singh, Aged About 47
Years, R/o Chack Hirasighwala, Sangariya, District Hanumangarh
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Kuldeep S/o Amarchand, R/o Ward No. 17, Dhaban,
Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2322/2025
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:33:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25458] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-3236/2025]
1. Shubhkarn S/o Kuldeep Singh @ Kakki, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Chack Hirasinghwala, Sangariya, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
2. Abhishek S/o Kuldeep Singh @ Kakki, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Chack Hirasinghwala, Sangariya, Dist.
Hanumangarh.
3. Dhunu S/o Kuldeep Singh @ Kakki, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Chack Hirasinghwala, Sangariya, Dist. Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Kuldeep S/o Amarchand, R/o Ward No. 17, Dhaban,
Sanagaria, Dist. Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreekant Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh, PP
Mr. Achala Ram for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
23/05/2025
1. By way of filing these three criminal misc. petition
(3236/2025) under Section 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.), the
petitioners have prayed that the respondent- police authorities be
directed to conduct investigation in relation to FIR No.478/2024
lodged at Police Station Sangriya, District Hanumangarh for the
offences punishable under Sections 109(2), 3(5) of BNS and
Section 27 of the Arms Act in a fair and impartial manner.
Additionally, it was prayed that investigation in relation to FIR
No.478/2024 may be transfer to CID(CB).
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:33:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25458] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-3236/2025]
The petitioners have filed criminal misc. petition
Nos.2321/2025 & 2322/2025 seeking quashing of the FIR
No.478/2024 lodged at Police Station Sangriya, District
Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 109(2) and 3(5)
BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act.
2. On a careful perusal of the case file, this Court finds that
prior to filing of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition 2322/2025, the
petitioner Shubhkaran had approached this Court by way of filing
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6264/2024 on identical grounds.
The following reliefs were prayed for by the petitioner-
Shubhkaran in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6264/2024:-
“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that
this petition may kindly be allowed and FIR NO478/24 PS
Sangaria DIST HANUMANGARH may kindly be quashed…
IF this honble Court comes at conclusion to the effect
that no case is made out for granting interim order, SHO,
Sangaria Dist Hanumangarh may kindly be given direction
to conduct fair investigation.”
3. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing S.B. Criminal
Misc. Petition No.6264/2024 vide order dated 18.09.2024 was
pleased to dispose of the same with the following directions. The
order dated 18.09.2024 is reproduced below for ready reference:-
“1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing
of an FIR No.478/2024 dated 17.08.2024, registered at
Police Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh, for the
offences under Sections 109(2), 3(5) of BNS and
Section 27 of Arms Act.
2. Heard.
3. The dispute between the petitioners and the
complainant is that the petitioners were previously
present to lodge an FIR against the complainant, and in
response to that, the present FIR has been filed as a
counter-blast. Petitioners however assert that FIR has
been registered on the basis of false allegations
levelled against them. The same thus deserves to be
quashed.
4. Whether or not the allegations are false is a
matter of investigation, and it is not for this Court at
this preliminary stage to adjudicate on the same.
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:33:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25458] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-3236/2025]
5. In the premise, it would not be appropriate to
invoke the discretionary jurisdiction vested under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now 528 of BNSS) and quash
the FIR summarily on the basis of self serving affidavit
of petitioners/accused. It is expected of the
Investigating Agency to proceed further in accordance
with the law.
6. However, it is expected of the Investigating
Officer to strictly follow the guidelines rendered by
Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and
Anr1.
7. Petitioners are directed to join the investigation.
If during the investigation, in case any incriminating
material of such nature is found against the petitioners,
which prima facie is suggestive of any cognizable
offence committed by them, warranting their custodial
interrogation, then a prior notice under Section 35 of
BNSS shall be given to them so as to enable them to
seek legal remedy in accordance with the law.
8. Conversely, it is made clear that in case there is
no incriminating material found against the petitioners,
appropriate report be filed before the competent court
expeditiously.
9. The instant petition is accordingly disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed
of.”
4. The record of the case further indicates that the petitioners
namely Shubhkaran, Kuldeep Singh Alias Kakki, Abhishek and
Dhanu @ Gurcharan Singh after disposal of S.B. Criminal Misc.
Petition No.6264/2024 filed criminal misc. petitions
Nos.9313/2024 and 9316/2024 before this Court. The reliefs
prayed for in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos.9313/2024 and
9316/2024 are reproduced below herein:-
“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.478/2024, Police Station Sangaria, District
Hanumangarh for offence u/s 109(2), 3(5) of BNS &
Section 27 of Arms Act, may kindly be quashed and set
Aside.
Any other relief which may be considered in
favour of the petitioner may kindly be ordered to be
issued.”
5. The criminal misc. petitions Nos.9313/2024 and 9316/2024
came to be decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by a
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:33:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25458] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-3236/2025]
common order dated 16.01.2025. The order dated 16.01.2025 is
reproduced below for ready reference:-
“1. Learned counsel for the petitioners do not want to
press the instant petition. However, they seek liberty for
the petitioners to submit a representation to the
concerned Superintendent of Police with appropriate
directions to decide the same and issue necessary
instructions to the concerned Investigating Officer.
2. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as not
pressed with liberty to the petitioners to submit a detailed
representation to the concerned Superintendent of Police
averring therein all the grounds which have been raised
in this petition within a period of 30 days from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
3. Till the representation is filed within the stipulated
time as directed above, the petitioners shall not be
arrested in connection with FIR No.478/2024 registered
at the Police Station Sangariya, District Hanumangarh so
as to enable them to submit the representation.
4. In the event, the representation is submitted, the
concerned Superintendent of Police is directed to
minutely and objectively consider the contents of the
same and thereafter, issue necessary instructions to the
Investigating Officer. All the relevant documents with the
representation shall also be taken into consideration. The
representation shall be decided within a period of 30 days
from the date of receipt of the same.
5. Needless to say that in the event, the grievance of
the petitioners persist, they would be at liberty to
approach this Court again.
6. Stay petition also stands dismissed.”
6. From the record of the case, it also transpires that after
disposal of the above mentioned criminal misc. petitions, the
petitioners- Shubhkaran, Kuldeep Singh Alias Kakki, Abhishek and
Dhanu @ Gurcharan Singh have preferred anticipatory bail
applications by way of filing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.10685/2024 and S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.10687/2024 before this Court which came to be heard and
decided on 27.01.2025. The said order is reproduced below for
ready reference:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioners do not press
these anticipatory bail applications but seeks liberty that the
petitioners may be permitted to surrender before the trial
Court and file the application(s) for bail.
Accordingly, the instant applications for anticipatory
bail are dismissed as not pressed. The petitioners are(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:33:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25458] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-3236/2025]directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before
10.02.2025 and file the application(s) for bail. It is expected
from the trial Court that the bail application(s) will be
decided as expeditiously as possible.
Till 10.02.2025, the petitioners shall not be arrested
in connection with FIR No.478/2024, registered at Police
Station Sangaria, District Hanumangarh.”
7. This Court on a careful perusal of the record finds that the
issues raised in the present criminal misc. petitions are akin to the
issued raised by the petitioners in earlier criminal misc. petitions
filed on their behalf. On being questioned in this regard, learned
counsel Shri Shree Kant Verma submitted that while deciding S.B.
Criminal Misc. Petitions Nos.9313/2024 and 9316/2024, this Court
directed the Superintendent of Police of the concerned district to
consider the representation of the petitioners submitted in
connection with FIR No.478/2024 objectively. However, the
representation submitted by the petitioners has yet not been
decided by the concerned Superintendent of Police and, therefore,
the petitioners are left with no option but to again approach this
Court by filing the instant criminal misc. petitions.
8. In the opinion of this Court, since the issues raised in the
present criminal misc. petitions are akin to the issues already
raised by the petitioners in the earlier misc. petitions which have
already been decided by this Court, the same cannot be addressed
in the present petitions being filed on the same set of facts and
grounds. The present criminal misc. petitions filed by the
petitioners on exactly same facts without there being any material
change in the circumstances particularly after rejection of the
anticipatory bail applications filed by them before this Court is
nothing but an abuse of the process of law.
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:33:09 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:25458] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-3236/2025]
9. Consequently, the present criminal misc. petitions filed under
Section 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.) are not maintainable and the
same are, therefore, dismissed.
10. All pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
25-27 divya/-
(Downloaded on 27/05/2025 at 09:33:09 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)