Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Ignoring Court-Mandated PWD Safety Report Invalidates Municipal Order: J&K&L High Court
06 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Reserves Verdict in Raju Tampering Conviction Plea
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Sohani Devi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred for quashing FIR No. 121/2021 lodged at Police Station Jhanwar, District Jodhpur City West for the offence under Sections 420, 417, 199 & 200 IPC.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the present case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 661/2016; Prithvi Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided on 31.05.2016.
3. The coordinate Bench of this Court on 31.05.2016 has passed the following order in Prithvi Singh (supra):-
"This Criminal Misc. Petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer for quashing of the FIR No. 30/2015 lodged at Police Station, Sheo, District Barmer for the offences punishable under sections 420, 192 IPC.
The impugned FIR has been lodged on the basis of a co
The main legal point established in the judgment is that if the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence, the FIR can be quashed.
The court held that allegations in the FIR disclosed a prima facie case under Section 170 IPC, and quashing was not warranted at this stage.
The court cannot quash an FIR based on allegations without assessing the correctness of those allegations at the initial stage.
The court established that for offences under Section 188 IPC, a written complaint from the concerned public servant is mandatory, and without it, the FIRs cannot be maintained. Furthermore, the cour....
The judgment emphasizes the mandatory nature of legal provisions such as Section 195(1) Cr.P.C., Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., and Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. in determining jurisdiction and procedural compliance....
The court upheld the FIR against the petitioner, ruling that sufficient allegations existed to constitute cognizable offences, and the truth of these allegations could not be evaluated at the quashin....
The court ruled that an FIR can only be quashed if the allegations do not constitute a cognizable offence, and the truthfulness of the allegations cannot be determined at the quashing stage.
The court emphasized that quashing an FIR requires clear evidence that no cognizable offence is disclosed, which was not the case here.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the initiation of proceedings for a non-cognizable offence is illegal and can be quashed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article