HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1822/2020 Rajendra Sharma S/o Sh. Prahlad Ram Sharma, Aged About 48 Years, R/o A-20, Shalimar Colony, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Director Of Police, Jaipur.

3. Superintendent Of Police, Ajmer.

4. SHO, PS Adrash Nagar, District Ajmer.

5. Investigation Officer, In The Fir No. 103/2020, Registered At P.s. Adarsh Nagar, District Ajmer.

6. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Shivbhaks Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Jaichandpura, Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.) Presently Posted At Sub Inspector At P.s. Adarsh Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr.Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

28/03/2026

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned F.I.R. No.103/2020 registered at the Police Station Adarsh Nagar, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 19, 54 & 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.

2. An interim order passed by this Court is operating in favour of the petitioner since 20.04.2020, this Court deems it just and proper to look into the contents and grounds of the instant petition.

3. Perusal of the same indicates that an averment has been made that the petitioner has not committed any offence whatsoever, rather he has been falsely implicated in the instant case, hence, under these circumstances, the proceedings of the impugned F.I.R. are liable to the quashed and interference of this Court is warranted.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and submits that the Police has already investigated the matter from all the four corners and has found the case to be made out against the co-accused Bhawani Singh and the present petitioner under Sections 19, 54 and 54-D of the Rajasthan Excise Act. Counsel further submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

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

5. Perusal of the impugned F.I.R. and the allegations levelled therein against the petitioner reveals commission of cognizable offence and the correctness of the allegations cannot be adjudicated by this Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C., certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer.

6. This Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant criminal misc. petition granting liberty to the petitioner to take all the available grounds and defence, which have been taken before this Court, at the appropriate stage of the trial.

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /22