[2025:RJ-JP:47162]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.5978/2025 Surendra Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Omprakash Meena, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Guwada Ghesli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

2. Babulal Meena Son Of Shri Bajrang Lal Meena, Resident Of State Bank Of India Office No 2, Near Saniya Hospital, Neb, Alwar (Raj.).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Ms. Anita Agarwal Mr. Laxmikant JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

21/11/2025

1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR No.59/2025 registered with the Police Station Sadar Alwar, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 420, 419, 468, 469, 471 & 120-B IPC and Section 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, some other persons appeared on behalf of the petitioner in the examination conducted by the respondent-bank. Learned counsel submits that when the biometrics of the examination along-with photographs were placed by the respondent-bank during the departmental enquiry clearly indicates that the petitioner has appeared in the examination conducted by the Bank, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever and the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel further submits that certain letters were sent to the respondent-bank with regard to providing documents when the same has not been provided.

3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposes the arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the examination was conducted in two parts, i.e., on 05.06.2016 and 26.06.2016. Learned counsel submits that in first part of the examination, i.e., 05.06.2016, instead of the petitioner, some other person appeared on his behalf, hence the petitioner appeared on the subsequent date of the examination, i.e., on 26.06.2016 and the biometric documents along-with photographs pertains to the subsequent examination. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, someone else impersonated the petitioner on the first date of examination, i.e., on 05.06.2016.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the contents of the FIR reveals that the alleged offences are cognizable, which are required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

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

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the impugned FIR are subject matter of the investigation and the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS as to whether the petitioner has appeared in person on both the examinations conducted by the respondent-bank or not or some other person has appeared in his name. This disputed fact is required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer.

7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Investigating Officer by way of filing a representation along-with documents, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law.

8. The Investigating Officer is directed to consider the averments of the same and in case, he comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, then he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS.

9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DH