Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Swai Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:30434) on 12 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:30434]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2680/2025
Sawai Singh S/o Laxman Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Village Dosiyawas,tehsil Sanchore,district Sanchore (Now Jalore)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Smt Usha Ben W/o Amba Singh, R/o Village
Dosiyawas,tehsil Sanchore District Sanchore (Now
Jalore )
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemandra Singh Sever
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
12/07/2025
By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under
Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the
FIR No.09/2024, registered at Police Station Sanchore, District
Sanchore for the ofences under Sections 341, 323, 509 and 354 of
IPC.
Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
material available on record.
Upon perusal of the case file, this Court prima facie finds that
the allegation against that the present petitioner is that on
08.01.2024 at about 09:00 am, when the complainant alongwith
her son was returning to Sanchore from Palanpur, in her car
bearing registration No.GJ-08-CK-4576 found that the petitioner
and the other co-accused person with whom, the complainant has
(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 09:20:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30434] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2680/2025]
previous animosity due to various ongoing civil/revenue disputes,
were threatening the tenants of the petitioner at shops situated at
Tharad Road, Sanchore to vacate the shops. When the
complainant asked the petitioner and the co-accused persons as to
why they were threatening the tenants, the petitioner and the co-
accused not only outraged the modesty of the complainant by
abusing her but also hit her with iron rod.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been roped in a false criminal case. He submitted
that due to ongoing dispute between the parties, the complainant
has instituted number of friovolous FIR against the petitioner.
Drawing attention of the Court towards the orders passed by the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
Nos.2185/2025 and 2187/2025, learned counsel submitted that in
both the cases, the police has been restrained from arresting the
petitioner. On these grounds, he implored the Court to quash and
set aside the impugned FIR.
In the opinion of this Court, since in the impugned FIR
specific allegations of inflicting injuries with blunt weapon and
outraging modesty of woman have been levelled against the
petitioner, discloses the commission of cognizable offences and
therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been roped in a
false criminal case merely because few civil litigations are pending
between them. Thus, 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 petitioner at this stage. This Court is not expected to
(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 09:20:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30434] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2680/2025]
either scan the entire material available on record or to record any
definitive finding on the contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioner, 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
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
(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 09:20:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:30434] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2680/2025]
(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.”
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
petitioner.
Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition is dismissed.
Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
1-himanshu/-
(Downloaded on 12/07/2025 at 09:20:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link