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
Vague 'Bad Work' Can't Presume Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Section 4 Without Evidence: Patna High Court
28 Apr 2026
Limiting Crop Damage Compensation to Specific Wild Animals Excluding Birds Violates Article 14: Bombay HC
28 Apr 2026
Appeal Limitation in 1991 Police Rules Yields to Uttarakhand Police Act 2007 on Inconsistency: Uttarakhand HC
28 Apr 2026
Nashik Court Reserves Verdict on Khan's TCS Bail Plea
29 Apr 2026
Delhi Court Grants Bail to I-PAC Director in PMLA Case
30 Apr 2026
No Historic Record of Saraswati Temple Demolition, Muslim Body Tells MP High Court in Bhojshala Dispute
30 Apr 2026
No Absolute Bar on Simultaneous Parole/Furlough for Co-Accused Under Delhi Prisons Rules: Delhi High Court
30 Apr 2026
Rejection of Jurisdiction Plea under Section 16 Arbitration Act Not Challengeable under Section 34 Till Final Award: Supreme Court
30 Apr 2026
'Living Separately' Under Section 13B HMA Means Cessation Of Marital Obligations, Regardless Of Residence: Patna High Court
30 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.