##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9142/2026 CNR: RJHC010974862026 | URN: CRLMP / 15439U / 2026 Sanjay Mundhra S/o Shri Manohar Lal Mundhra, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of 1-E-8, Sukharia Nagar, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Hemraj S/o Shri Gopi Ram, Resident Of Sri Ganganagar,rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar Mr. Nitin Goklani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG Mr. Sandeep Soni HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order

20/09/2026

1. The present petition has been filed under section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023, for quashing of FIR No. 415/2026 dated 19.09.2026 registered at Police Station Jawahar Nagar, (Ganga Nagar) District Ganga Nagar, for offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 308(4), 308(5), 111(2)(b), 111(3) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023.

2. At the outset, it is noted that today is Sunday and a holiday, however, on permission been granted by Hon’ble the Chief Justice, the matter is being heard today.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the present petition has been filed without annexing the certified copy of the FIR. He submits that, initially, even a photocopy of the FIR was not available, as there was a restriction on furnishing copies of FIRs relating to certain offences, including the offence of organised crime. However, after registration of the FIR, the same was uploaded and a copy thereof was subsequently procured online.

4. Considering the submissions made above, the requirement of submitting certified copy is waived for the time being.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. While elaborating his submissions, learned counsel contends that there is no allegation in the FIR against the present petitioner with regard to extortion. On a bare perusal of the FIR, it would transpire that the allegation is that at the behest of the present petitioner, one Aarzoo Bishnoi threatened the complainant to support a particular group of persons in the forthcoming election for the post of Chairperson.

5.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was elected as a Ward Member on 14.09.2026 and was thereafter declared as a candidate for the post of Chairperson on 18.09.2026 whereafter on the very next day i.e. 19.09.2026, the present FIR came to be lodged.

5.2. While referring to the contents of the FIR, learned counsel submits that the allegations pertain to alleged threats extended to the complainant through certain persons on 06.09.2026, 11.09.2026 and 12.09.2026 and thereafter through voice messages allegedly sent on 15.09.2026 and 17.09.2026.

5.3. Learned counsel submits that merely on the allegation that the complainant was being threatened at the behest of the present petitioner, the present FIR has been lodged and the same amounts to an abuse of the process of law, with an ulterior object of preventing the petitioner from participating in the democratic electoral process.

5.4. He further submits that the petitioner has, therefore, been constrained to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in the exceptional circumstances of the case, as apprehension of arrest and coercive action against him would seriously prejudice his participation in the election scheduled to be held on 21.09.2026.

5.5. Learned counsel further submits that the offences alleged against the petitioner are, prima facie, not made out. While referring to Section 308 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, learned counsel submits that the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 308 of the BNS are not prima facie attracted against the petitioner considering the fact that there is absence of essential ingredient i.e. delivery of property. He further submits that even the offence under Section 111 of the BNS relating to organised crime is no