HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7019/2024 Prakash Sharma S/o Raghunath Sharma And Anr.

----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan And Anr.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajeet Kumar Bhandari, Sr. Adv.

assisted by Ms. Lipi Garg Mr. Kapil Purohit and Mr. N.N. Sharma Mr. Jai Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Omkar Singh Rajpurohit, P.P.

Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, P.P.

Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P.

Mr. Manish Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

08/05/2025

1. The present petition is filed seeking directions for quashing of FIR No.376/2024 dated 03.08.2024. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner- Shri Ajeet Kumar Bhandari submits that the entire proceedings in question arose due to the matrimonial dispute qua the marriage which was solemnized on

26.02.2020.

2. It is further submitted that after few conflicts the impugned FIR was made to be registered on 01.01.2022 by the daughter of respondent No.2 alleging offences under Sections 498-A, 406 and 354 of IPC wherein, as on date challan is filed. It is submitted that by way of the impugned FIR, it is alleged that petitioner and his son have fraudulently acted. Moreover, there were ulterior motives for evasion of income tax from the Income Tax Department. Shri Prithvi Singh upon being called by the Income Tax Department has submitted that the said application in his name is fraudulent and he is not signatory to the same, he has alleged the petitioner to be liable qua the same.

3. Learned Senior Counsel submits that respondent No.2 and Prithvi Singh are hand-in-glove as there was a dispute pertaining to tenancy between the petitioner and Prithvi Singh and consequentially a concocted story was framed resultant to which the impugned FIR was lodged. It is further submitted that three officers are changed till date however, still the investigating authorities are not acting in the desired manner.

4. Learned counsel has further apprised the Court with the fact that the impugned FIR is counter blast to the income tax proceeding and the matrimonial dispute initiated by the opposite party. Moreover, the Income Tax Department as per manual of office procedure and as per Section 138 of the Income Tax Act cannot supply information to any outsider or third party therefore, the narrations made in the FIR are fallacious, incorrect and self-

created.

5. Per contra, Shri Manish Gupta appearing for the respondents has submitted that the criteria for quashing of the FIR and the registration of the FIR are spelt out in the landmark judgment of State Of Haryana And Others vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Another reported in AIR 1993 SUPREME COURT 1348 and the ingredients of forgery, guilty intention of mind are reflected. It is submitted that a person not in dispute- Prithvi Singh, who is independent is implicated and wrongfully named by the petitioner, nonetheless, the FSL report and investigation made insofar is marching against the petitioner.

6. Having heard the rival arguments leveled by the respective counsel, this Court directs the petitioner to implead the Director of investigation as a party in array of respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to supply a copy of the petition in the office of Shri Sandeep Pathak, during the course of the day. Mr. Pathak is directed to file appropriate explanation qua the query as to whether contrary to the manual of office procedure and to the provision of Section 138 of the Income Tax Act, any information was shared/can be shared with the respondents or the person namely Prithvi Singh, in a sealed cover envelope, by the next date of hearing.

8. The concerned officer from the Income Tax Department dealing with the matter in hand, shall also remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing, to tender reasonable explanation as the matter is of serious issue and of public importance, invoking the right to privacy of an individual.

9. Matter is directed to be listed on