HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No v. State of Rajasthan, through PP

Trilok Nath S/o Shri Chetan Nath, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vardhman College Ke Samane, Krishna Colony, Beawar, District Beawar (Ajmer), Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 12/03/2025 Order

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR No.56/2025, dated 28.01.2025 registered at Police Station Beawar City, District Beawar (Ajmer) for the offences punishable under Sections 108 & 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner with the false and fabricated facts, whereas, the correct fact is that the deceased student committed suicide as he was not coming to the school and when this fact was brought to the notice of his parents, he committed suicide. Counsel further submits that the deceased also gave his own handwritten note to the school administration that [2025:RJ-JP:11506] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-894/2025] he is on fault for not coming to school and not appearing in the practical examinations.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. He further submits that the CCTV footage were demanded from the school administration so that the fact as regards the allegations can be verified but, they denied to provide the CCTV footage.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material made available before this Court and also gone through the averments made in the FIR.

5. Law is well settled with regard to quashing of criminal proceeding in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 48 482 of the Code which 482 we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an [2025:RJ-JP:11506] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-894/2025] investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com-plaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

6. On perusal of the averments made in the FIR, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence constitutes from the averments made in the FIR.

7. Counsel for the petitioner tried to convince this Court that the allegations against the petitioner are false and fabricated by [2025:RJ-JP:11506] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-894/2025] submitting a parents assurance letter dated 27.01.2025 bearing thumb impression of Naurati Devi (maternal grandmother of the deceased). Counsel for the petitioner during arguments stated that the deceased student was not coming to school for last six months but the parents assurance letter placed on record does not reflect any such thing as regards the absence of the deceased student for last six months, while, it only reveals that the deceased student was not upto the mark in education.

8. This Court has not equipped with the proper mechanism to verify the correctness of the allegations. It is only the Investigating Agency which after collecting the evidence and making a thorough investigation can draw the conclusion whether the allegations made in the FIR are correct or not.

9. Taking into consideration the averments made in the FIR and the discussions made above, this Court finds no ground to quash the impugned FIR.

10. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.

11. Stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. DIVYA SAINI /119 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J

Trilok Nath S/o Shri Chetan Nath, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vardhman College Ke Samane, Krishna Colony, Beawar, District Beawar (Ajmer), Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 12/03/2025 Order

1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR No.56/2025, dated 28.01.2025 registered at Police Station Beawar City, District Beawar (Ajmer) for the offences punishable under Sections 108 & 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged against the petitioner with the false and fabricated facts, whereas, the correct fact is that the deceased student committed suicide as he was not coming to the school and when this fact was brought to the notice of his parents, he committed suicide. Counsel further submits that the deceased also gave his own handwritten note to the school administration that [2025:RJ-JP:11506] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-894/2025] he is on fault for not coming to school and not appearing in the practical examinations.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner. He further submits that the CCTV footage were demanded from the school administration so that the fact as regards the allegations can be verified but, they denied to provide the CCTV footage.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material made available before this Court and also gone through the averments made in the FIR.

5. Law is well settled with regard to quashing of criminal proceeding in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335], wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 48 482 of the Code which 482 we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an [2025:RJ-JP:11506] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-894/2025] investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com-plaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

6. On perusal of the averments made in the FIR, at this stage, it cannot be said that no cognizable offence constitutes from the averments made in the FIR.

7. Counsel for the petitioner tried to convince this Court that the allegations against the petitioner are false and fabricated by [2025:RJ-JP:11506] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-894/2025] submitting a parents assurance letter dated 27.01.2025 bearing thumb impression of Naurati Devi (maternal grandmother of the deceased). Counsel for the petitioner during arguments stated that the deceased student was not coming to school for last six months but the parents assurance letter placed on record does not reflect any such thing as regards the absence of the deceased student for last six months, while, it only reveals that the deceased student was not upto the mark in education.

8. This Court has not equipped with the proper mechanism to verify the correctness of the allegations. It is only the Investigating Agency which after collecting the evidence and making a thorough investigation can draw the conclusion whether the allegations made in the FIR are correct or not.

9. Taking into consideration the averments made in the FIR and the discussions made above, this Court finds no ground to quash the impugned FIR.

10. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.

11. Stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. DIVYA SAINI /119 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J