HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8553/2022

Goverdhan Singh Son Of Shri Bharat Singh Parihar, Aged About

43 Years, R/o Of B/B-2, Navlakha Apartment, Bharatmata Path,

Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Near Civil Lines Railway Crossing, C-

Scheme, Jaipur.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

2.

Pramod Swami, R.P.S., Assistant Police Commissioner,

Jhotwara, Jaipur Metropolitan (Raj).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat with

Mr. Parmeshwar Pilania

For Respondent(s)

:

Major R.P. Singh, Sr. Adv., AAG with

Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, GA-

cum-AAG

Mr. Jaivardhan Singh Shekhawat

Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat

Mr. Aditya Singh

Mr. C.V. Singh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

30/11/2022

This criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has been filed for quashing the FIR No.0238/2022 dated

16.09.2022 registered at Police Station Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur City

South (Raj.), for the offences under Section 292 of IPC and

Section 15 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act

(Amended) 2012, 2019.

The relevant facts in brief are that an FIR, as aforesaid,

came to be lodged against the petitioner by the complainant, Shri

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-8553/2022]

Pramod Swami (RPS-Assistant Police Commissioner, Jhotwara,

Jaipur Police Commissioner) wherein, it was alleged that the four

pen-drives recovered from the possession of the petitioner

disclosed obscene and porn material which were meant to be used

for commercial purpose.

Inviting attention of this Court towards the contents of FIR,

learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the four pen-drives

recovered from his possession were deposited in the “Maalkhana”

and hence, there was no occasion for examining the same after

receipt of the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory which

could disclose that the same contained obscene and porn

videos/material. He submits that while, none of the four pen-

drives recovered from the possession of the petitioner had

capacity of more than 32 GB, the police karyavahi refers to a pen-

drive of 64 GB which was never recovered from his possession.

He, therefore, submits that he has falsely been roped in a

concocted FIR which deserves to be quashed. He, therefore, prays

that the criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed and the FIR in

question be quashed and set aside.

Per contra, Major R.P. Singh, learned AAG assisted by Mr.

Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, learned GA-cum-AAG would submit

that the contents of four pen-drives recovered from the possession

of the petitioner along with report of FSL examination were

remitted to the investigating agency in a pen-drive which

disclosed obscene and porn material stored in the pen-drives

recovered from the petitioner’s possession, giving rise to

commission of cognizable offence(s). He submits that the 64 GB

pen-drive represents the pen-drive containing the data from the

four pen-drives recovered from the petitioner’s possession along

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-8553/2022]

with report of the FSL. Learned counsel submits that since the FIR

discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, it cannot be

quashed. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the criminal

miscellaneous petition.

Heard. Considered.

It is trite law that no FIR can be quashed by this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C. which discloses commission of cognizable

offence(s). It has not been the case of the petitioner that contents

of FIR in question do not disclose commission of a cognizable

offence. Therefore, it cannot be quashed by this Court under

Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

it is a concocted FIR as while, none of the pen-drives recovered

from his possession was having capacity of 64 GB, which, as per

the ‘police karyawahi’