Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14081
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Sudesh Bansal, J
Karan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 107/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Jemshi
For the Respondents: Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP
The power to quash an FIR is limited; unsubstantiated defenses do not meet the standard for dismissal of serious allegations of crimes against minors.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 528 and 299 - POCSO Act, 2012 - Sections 5(l)/6 - Quashing FIR - Petition for quashing FIR alleging sexual offences against a minor girl dismissed as the plea of alibi raised by the accused was found unsubstantiated and did not satisfy the principles laid down for quashing under the established legal standards. (Paras 1-7)
(B) Quashing - Standards - The court held that it may only quash FIRs in rare scenarios and cannot engage in a reliability inquiry of the allegations. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner’s claim of participation in a boxing tournament during the alleged crime period was unsupported, and there were serious allegations regarding his involvement in sexual assault against a minor.
Findings of Court:
The High Court underscored that the petitioner's alibi was not proven and that the proceedings for the FIR were warranted.
Issues: The main issues were whether the FIR could be quashed based on the petitioner's plea of alibi and whether the evidence presented supported the dismissal request.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the power to quash an FIR is limited and that unsubstantiated claims will not suffice for dismissal of serious allegations.
Result: Criminal petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of serious crimes warrant investigations. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. claims of alibi must be substantiated by credible evidence. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. quashing powers are restricted and require cautious application. (Para 5) |
| 4. legal standards for fir quashing are rigorously set. (Para 6) |
| 5. court's findings led to the dismissal of the petition. (Para 7) |
Order
07/08/2025
1. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 5 28 of BNSS has been filed by petitioner, seeking to quash FIR No.852/ 2017 registered at Police Station Behror, Alwar, wherein after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under Section 299 Cr.PC with findings that offences under Sections 363, 376D, 342, 376(2) (n) & 120B IPC and Sections 5 (l)/6 of POCSO Act, are proved against the petitioner and petitioner has absconded.
2. Counsel for petitioner submits that during the period of alleged incident, in between 18.11.2017 and 25.11.2017, petitioner was not personally present and attending a Boxing Tournament under the weight category of 79 Kg. at Bikaner. In support of such contention, a document dated 05.09.2024 along with list of team, participates in the tournament, has been placed on record. Further, the contention of counsel is that the victim has falsely named petitioner in her supplementary statements and the Police has wrongly declared the petitioner as absconder, without following the due process of law. Hence, in such circumstances, impugned FIR be quashed.
3. Public Prosecutor has opposed the aforesaid contentions and states that in the investigation conducted by the Police, petitioner has been found involved for offence of committing sexual assault with a minor girl of 14 years. Petitioner has not cooperated with the investigation, hence, after thorough investigation, charge- sheet under Section 299 Cr.PC for offence under Sections 363, 376D, 342, 376(2)(n) & 120B IPC and Sections 5 (l)/6 of POCSO Act, has been filed against the petitioner alongwith an other accused namely Sh. Shyam Singh, who is also absconding.
4. Having adverted to the rival contentions and after perusal of record, this Court prima facie finds that document dated 05.09.2024, on which counsel for petitioner has placed reliance, does not support the case of petitioner to have participated in the tournament at Bikaner. This document clearly envisaged that the Boxing Tournament under the weight category of 79 Kg, wherein petitioner claims to have participated, was not organized at all. Mere inclusion of the name of petitioner in the team of participants, does not prima facie prove the plea of alibi, sought to be taken by the petitioner. However, it is hereby observed that the plea of alibi would be available to petitioner to defend himself in the trial. Further, the prayer of interim relief has already been rejected by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 23.07.2025.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the principles laid down in case of State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335], elaborately considered the scope and extent of the powers of High Court to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2021 SCC OnLine SC 315], wherein the Apex Court observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/ complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made therein.
6. On perusal of the contents of FIR and charge-sheet, this Court is of the view that the present case does not fall in any of the categories as expounded by the Apex Court in case of Choudhary Bhajan Lal (supra), to quash the impugned FIR in exercise of powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.
7. As a result, the present criminal misc. petition is hereby dismissed.
