IMPORTANT POINT
A litigant cannot be permitted to misuse judicial process by filing frivolous petitions and easy access to justice cannot be allowed to be used as a license to file misconceived and frivolous petition.

ORDER

Petitioner herein, who is an enrolled Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961, before the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana, submitted a written application dated 12.10.2020 before the SHO, Police Station, Govindgarh, District Alwar, to register an FIR against the then Minister of Law & Justice, Hon’ble Home Minister and Hon’ble Prime Minister as also against the Programmers and Journalists having nexus with TV Channels like Aaj Tak, Republic India and the members connected with Hindu Mahasabha, Vishva Hindu Parishad, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Bajrang Dal etc. The copy of the application dated 12.10.2020 is available on record as Annexure-3. Petitioner has averred in his application that an Amendment Bill – 2019, to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955, was presented in the Parliament at New Delhi, which was passed by both the Houses of Parliament viz. Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and thereafter, Hon’ble President of India signed the bill, which has been published in the Gazette Notification as a Legislation. It has further been averred that such an amended Legislation is against the spirit of Constitution of India, which has been brought with an intention to oppress Muslims and People of Secular Ideology and after promulgation of such amended Legislation, protests were made by the affected people and secular institutions across the country, wherein several persons were killed and injured; protestors were locked up in Jail, hence, thereby throughout the country an environment of hatred animosity and public disorder was created. It was averred and prayed that in respect of such illegal deeds, FIR be registered against culprits for offences under Sections 302, 323, 341, 344 read with Sections 120-B, 409, 153-A, 153-B, 218, 109 read with Sections 193 & 195 of IPC and investigation be initiated against the culprits.

2. It appears that petitioner also sent a copy of the application dated 12.10.2020 to the concerned Superintendent of Police, District Alwar, on 14.10.2020 but when FIR was not registered, he filed a written complaint on 19.10.2020 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh Camp at Govindgarh, District Alwar, seeking direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C to register FIR and investigate the matter.

3. The criminal complaint filed by the petitioner was considered by the Judicial Magistrate and vide order dated 21.10.2020 came to be rejected on the issue of jurisdiction assigning reasons therein that the whole complaint does not whisper a word about occurrence of any incident or accrual of any cause of action or part of cause of action within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Govindgarh; against the order dated 21.10.2020, petitioner preferred a criminal revision petition, which was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Alwar, vide order dated 20.02.2025. Thereafter, petitioner has filed instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, impugning the orders dated 21.10.2020 and 20.02.2025 and prayed to issue directions to respondent No.1 – State of Rajasthan to register Zero Number FIR against the respondents in the present matter.

4. The petitioner appeared in person and pressed the petition on merits and relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Lalita Kumari Versus Government of U.P. & Ors.: AIR 2014 SC 187, it has been urged by the petitioner that the allegations made in his application dated 12.10.2020 disclose commission of cognizable offences and do not warrant any preliminary enquiry, hence, it was incumbent and mandatory for the police to register the FIR in the present matter and since FIR was not registered by police nor Judicial Magistrate entertain his criminal complaint, Revision Petition too has been dismissed by Sessions Court, therefore, direction needs to be issued by this Court.

5. Learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of State of Rajasthan, opposed the petition and submits that a