[2025:RJ-JD:22694]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3735/2025 Mahesh S/o Sh. Shaitan Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Lakheta, P.s. Matoda, District Phalodi, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Ashok S/o Shri Mohan Ram, R/o Village Lakheta, P. S.

Matoda, District Phalodi, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Subodh Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Singh Chandawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

12/05/2025 The factual report dated 08.05.2025 received by learned Public Prosecutor from the office of Superintendent of Police, Circle Lohawat, District Phalodi is taken on record.

The factual report dated 08.05.2025 indicates that in the result of investigation, the offences under Sections 452, 342, 376(3), 376(da), 509, 354 and 376(2)(n) of IPC; and Sections 3(a)/4,5(g)(l)/6, 16/17 of POCSO Act have been prima facie found to be proved against the present petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar.

In the opinion of this Court, since the impugned FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences. 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 statge. This Court is not expected to 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 (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 condit