Case Law
Subject : Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR & Investigation Procedure
Jaipur
, May 1, 2025:
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at
Jaipur
, has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by former state minister
The petitions, led by S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7852/2024, involved former MLA and minister
Senior Counsel Mr. Madhav Mitra, representing the petitioners, argued:
* The FIRs were registered sequentially after the 2023 Assembly elections due to political vendetta by the new ruling party.
* The allegations in the FIRs (including illegal mining, tender manipulation, fraudulent land allotment
pattas
, and financial irregularities) were vague, absurd, improbable, and actuated by mala fides.
* Complainants in several FIRs were allegedly supporters of the ruling party, influencing local police.
* There was a genuine apprehension of biased investigation, necessitating either quashing or a unified, independent probe by a senior officer in a different district.
* Reliance was placed on precedents like
Additional Advocate General Mr. Manoj Sharma, representing the State, and counsel for the complainants argued: * The petitioners' pleas were contradictory – seeking both quashing and unified investigation. * Each FIR involved distinct facts, complainants, offences (illegal mining, forgery, land scams, etc.), dates, and locations, negating the possibility of clubbing under the 'sameness' doctrine. * No specific allegations of mala fides were made against any individual investigating officer to warrant a transfer of investigation. * Petitioners were allegedly not cooperating with the investigation despite interim protection from coercive action. * Petitioners bypassed alternative remedies available under the CrPC (like approaching senior police officers or the Magistrate) before invoking the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. * The accused cannot dictate the investigating agency or officer, as per Romila Thapar .
Justice Sameer Jain meticulously analyzed the arguments and the legal position:
On Clubbing FIRs: The Court found that the FIRs concerned distinct allegations, witnesses, documents, and causes of action. > "A careful perusal of the record reveals that the impugned FIRs are registered, each concerning distinct and independent allegations... These FIRs are not interconnected by a common thread of fact, transaction, or occurrence. Hence, the doctrine of sameness... is not applicable... Therefore, the prayer for clubbing of FIRs is without legal foundation and is accordingly rejected." (Para 27)
On Transfer of Investigation: The Court noted the absence of specific allegations of mala fides against any investigating officer. > "The petitions do not allege any specific malafides or bias against any named Investigating Officer... The law requires that for an allegation of malafide to be sustained, it must be pleaded with specificity and supported by material facts." (Para 29) > Citing Romila Thapar , the Court reiterated: "The accused has no locus standi to dictate or choose the Investigating Officer, unless the process is vitiated by apparent bias or illegality." (Para 30)
On Quashing FIRs:
The Court refused to quash the FIRs at this nascent stage, citing the seriousness of the allegations (economic offences), the contradictory nature of the reliefs sought, and the availability of alternative remedies.
>
"This Court is not inclined to accept the contention that the FIRs are baseless or actuated by malafides, nor does it find sufficient grounds to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) to quash the same where allegations are yet to be tested by a full and fair investigation."
(Para 32)
> The Court emphasized the principle laid down in
The Court distinguished precedents cited by petitioners like
The High Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions, rejecting the prayers for quashing, clubbing, and transfer of investigation. However, in the interest of justice, the Court directed: * The petitioners must cooperate and join the investigation in each FIR within ten days. * Investigating authorities must conduct a fair, impartial investigation strictly according to law, considering materials submitted by the petitioners.
The ruling underscores that allegations of political motivation alone are insufficient to quash or consolidate multiple FIRs if they arise from distinct causes of action, and specific evidence of bias is required to justify transferring investigations.
#RajasthanHC #QuashingFIR #Investigation #RajasthanHighCourt
Madras HC Directs Municipality to Auction Amusement Rides Licenses on Vaigai Riverbed for Chithirai Festival: Madurai Bench
17 Apr 2026
TCS Nashik Accused Seek Bail in Harassment Probe
17 Apr 2026
Insurer Liable for Gratuitous Passenger in Goods Vehicle, Can Recover from Owner: Kerala High Court
17 Apr 2026
MP High Court Issues Notice in PIL Alleging Disrespect to National Song 'Vande Mataram' by Indore Councillors: Article 51A(a)
17 Apr 2026
Bombay HC Grants NSE Ad-Interim Relief Against Fake Social Media Accounts Infringing 'NSE' Trademark: Platforms Must Takedown in 36 Hours
18 Apr 2026
Supreme Court Tags Challenges to UP Gangsters Act with Similar Organised Crime Laws from Gujarat, Maharashtra: Refers to 3-Judge Bench
18 Apr 2026
Loan Repayments for Assets Can't Reduce Maintenance Under Section 144 BNSS: Supreme Court
18 Apr 2026
Fernandez Seeks to Turn Approver in ₹200 Cr PMLA Case
18 Apr 2026
Prosecution Can't Gatekeep Witnesses: Rajasthan HC Directs Summoning of Doctor Under Section 311 CrPC for Just Decision
18 Apr 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.