Ugam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:32072) on 22 July, 2025

Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur

Ugam Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:32072) on 22 July, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:32072]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                 S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5730/2025

Ugam Singh S/o Shri Nahar Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Vadka,        Police   Station      Paldi-M,        Tehsil      Sheoganj,    District
Sirohi(Raj)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.        State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2.        Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Chhoga Ram, R/o Posaliya, Police
          Station Paldi-M, Tehsil Sheoganj, District Sirohi(Raj)
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP.



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

22/07/2025

1. The present criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS,

has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR

No.138/2024 registered at Police Station Paldi M., District Sirohi

for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 333, 74 and 3(5)

of BNS.

2. Upon a perusal of the impugned FIR, this Court finds that

specific allegation of beating the complainant- Praveen Kumar on

06.10.2024 at about 06.00 has been levelled against the present

petitioner.

3. This Court, looking to the nature of allegations against the

petitioner, directed the learned Public Prosecutor to call for the

factual report. The factual report dated 21.07.2025 received by

(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 09:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32072] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5730/2025]

the learned Public Prosecutor from the office of the Dy.

Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell, Sirohi, District Sirohi,

indicates that more than five criminal cases under various

Sections of IPC are pending against the present petitioner. The

factual report also indicates that after registration of the impugned

FIR, the complainant Praveen Kumar got medically examined and

the medical examination of the complainant indicates that in the

alleged incident occurred on 06.10.2024, he has been caused

injuries by the present petitioner. The factual report further

indicates that the police, after making thorough investigation,

found the cognizance offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2),

333, 74 and 3(5) of BNS to be proved against the petitioner.

4. 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

definite finding thereon.

5. 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

(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 09:44:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32072] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5730/2025]

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.”

6. 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.

(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 09:44:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:32072] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5730/2025]

7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition as well as stay

application stand dismissed.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
55-Tikam/-

(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 09:44:06 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)