The court affirmed that allegations in the FIR constituted cognizable offences, warranting prosecution without sufficient grounds for quashing.

Order

03/07/2025 By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 BNSS , the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“In the circumstances aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to.

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Criminal Misc. Petition may kindly be allowed and the FIR No.0029 dated 21-.3-2025 before the Ps Bhaniyana, Jaisalmer by the Non-Petitioner No.2, against the Petitioners for the Offence under Section

189(2), Ordered to be quashed and set aside;

Any other appropriate Order or Direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of humble Petitioners.”

2. Drawing attention of the Court towards the impugned FIR, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the FIR does not disclose the commission of the alleged offences under Sections

189(2), 329(3), 115(2) of the BNS due to lack of essential ingredients for constitution of the said offences. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, number of civil/commercial disputes are pending between petitioners and the complainant party and, therefore, the impugned FIR has been lodged only with a view to build pressure upon the petitioners to settle the ongoing disputes with the complainant. He submitted that Mehtab Singh (father of the complainant and history sheeter of P.S. Khasur, Jaisalmer) had conspired with other persons so that petitioners could be deprived of their property and in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched by the complainant and the other accused persons, petitioners have been roped in a false criminal cases.

3. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioners implored the Court to quash and set aside the impugned FIR.

4. This Court looking to the nature of controversy involved in the present case directed the learned Public Prosecutor to call for the factual report.

5. The factual report dated 30.06.2025 procured by the learned Public Prosecutor from the office of SHO P.S. Bhaniyana, District Jaisalmer indicates that a long standing dispute between the complainant and the accused party concerning a piece of land, has allegedly escalated into a violent altercation. On 20.03.2025, petitioners (Achalaram and Hemant) created disturbance at the disputed site and attacked the complainant and one Pratap Singh using sharp and blunt weapons. In the alleged incident, Parwat Singh and Bhupendra Singh have sustained various injuries.

6. The police after recording the statements of the various witnesses and obtaining injury report of Parwat Singh and Bhupendra Singh have found cognizable offences to be proved against present petitioners.

7. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the impugned FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences, therefore, 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 petitioners at this stage. 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.

8. 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 otherw