Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Raja Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:28110) on 1 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:28110]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4575/2025
Raja Ram S/o Shri Sanga Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 7Lc
Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar District Sri Ganganagar
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecuter
2. Dali Devi W/o Late Durga Ram, R/o 7Lc Tehsil Sri
Vijaynagar District Sri Ganganagar
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hans Raj
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP with
Mr. Omprakash, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
01/07/2025
1. By way of filing the present criminal miscellaneous petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (528 BNSS), the petitioner has prayed
for the following reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully
prayed that this criminal misc. petition UNDER SECTION
528 OF B.N.S.S. (old u/s 482 Cr.P.C) may kindly be
accepted and allowed and investigation and proceeding
against the petitioner in pursuance of the annexed F.I.R.
bearing no.161/2024registered at P.S. Jaitsar, Dist. Sri
Ganganagar may kindly be quashed and be set aside and
the petitioner may be exonerated from the offences u/s.
307, 115/21 126/2) 191/2) 101/2) 200/2) 6(2)(a) of the
BNS and the Investigating Officer may kindly be directed
not arrest the petitioner in this case in the interests of
justice. Any other order which is in favour of the
petitioner may kindly be passed in the interest of
justice.”
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.
(Downloaded on 01/07/2025 at 09:39:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28110] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4575/2025]
3. Having gone through the impugned FIR, this Court prima
facie finds that in the FIR, specific allegation of beating the
complainant with blunt weapons has been levelled accused
persons.
4. The factual report dated 26.06.2025 received by the learned
Public Prosecutor from the office of Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Circle Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar is taken on
record. The factual report indicates that in the alleged incident
which occurred on 18.09.2024, the complainant were caused
injuries by the accused persons without any provocation from his
side.
5. 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
petitioner. 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 petitioner.
6. 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(Downloaded on 01/07/2025 at 09:39:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28110] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4575/2025]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 01/07/2025 at 09:39:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:28110] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4575/2025]
7. 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 petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition as well as stay
application stand dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
31-divya/-
(Downloaded on 01/07/2025 at 09:39:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)