HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7002/2025 Prakash Chand Saini Son of Sharwan Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident of Ward No. 5, Shiv Singhpura, Kankra, District Beawar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

2. Mukesh Marlecha, Resident of 8, Girdawar Gali, Beawar At Present Branch Manager Cooperative Bank Masuda, Beawar, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

19/11/2025

1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned FIR No. 295/2025 registered with Police Station Masuda, Beawar for the offence under Section 316(5) of BNS.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was posted at Ajmer Central Cooperative Bank, Branch Masuda on the post of cashier and certain cash deposit amounts were collected by him but on account of some urgent work, he left the bank and subsequently, the impugned FIR has been lodged by the Branch Manager with the allegations that the petitioner has misappropriated certain amounts. Counsel submits that in fact no such amount was misappropriated by him but showing his bona fides, the petitioner deposited the amount disputed by the Bank Manager on 19.09.2025, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever as alleged in the impugned FIR, therefore interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the allegation made in the impugned FIR reveals the commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the police, hence interference of this Court is not warranted.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. This Court is not going to adjudge and examine the correctness and genuineness of the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR against the petitioner by exercising its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 BNSS. Certainly it is the job of the Investigating Officer.

6. The petitioner would be at liberty to submit a comprehensive representation along with receipt and other documents in support of his contentions before the Investigating Officer who shall consider the same in accordance with law.

7. Even if the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, he would issue a notice under Section 35 of BNSS to the petitioner and in case, he comes to the conclusion that custody of the petitioner is required then he would issue fifteen days notice to the petitioner before proceeding further in the matter.

8. The present criminal misc. petition, stay application and all pending application(s), stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/35 Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)