A judicial order taking cognizance of a criminal offence must be a speaking order that demonstrates the application of judicial mind and records reasons for satisfaction; a cryptic or perfunctory order is unsustainable and violates the principles of due process.

ORDER

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 16/03/2026

DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 16/03/2026

FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order

DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11/05/2026

BY THE COURT:-

1. By way of filing the instant miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has laid challenge to the order dated 04.06.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bikaner in proceedings arising out of a complaint No.25/2022 submitted by the Public Prosecutor for the offence under Section 182 IPC, whereby cognizance was taken and process came to be issued against the petitioner.

2. Concisely stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had lodged FIR No.07/2020 registered at Police Station Seruna District Bikaner alleging therein that accused Shiv Singh and others attempted to hit his grandson by driving a Bolero vehicle in a rash and deliberate manner, as a consequence whereof his grandson sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Allegations pertaining to humiliation and intimidation on account of the complainant belonging to a Scheduled Caste community were also levelled in the FIR.

2.1. After conducting investigation, the police submitted Negative Final Report No.01/2020 dated 24.02.2020 concluding that the allegations were false and had been levelled owing to personal vendetta and strained relations between the parties arising out of divergent political affiliations. Consequent thereto, the Station House Officer submitted a complaint before the learned trial Court seeking initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under Section 182 IPC on the allegation of lodging a false report. Hence the instant misc. petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR are wholly false, concocted and motivated, and that the petitioner has been falsely implicated due to ulterior considerations. It was submitted that no offence, as alleged, is made out against the petitioner and continuation of investigation would amount to abuse of the process of law. On the strength of these submissions, it was prayed that the impugned FIR be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned Dy.G.A. opposed the petition and submitted that the FIR, on its plain reading, prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offences and, therefore, necessitates a thorough investigation. It was contended that disputed questions relating to truthfulness or falsity of the allegations cannot be adjudicated while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./ BNSS . He further submitted that the factual report submitted by the Investigating Agency reveals prima facie involvement of the accused in the alleged incident. It was also pointed out that pursuant to directions issued earlier by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Misc. Petition No.1009/2026, the Superintendent of Police had already been directed to ensure fair and impartial investigation in the matter. It was, therefore, urged that no ground for quashing of the FIR is made out and the petition deserves dismissal.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and minutely gone through the order impugned.

6. A perusal of the record reveals that before arriving at the conclusion that the allegations levelled by the petitioner were false, no effective opportunity appears to have been afforded to the petitioner to raise objections or to submit a protest against the conclusions drawn by the Investigating Officer. The recommendation for initiating proceedings under Section 182 IPC was forwarded straightaway along with the negative fi