Watika, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor

Balchand Saini Alias Balu Son Of Shri Chhotu Lal Mali, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Tibawali Dhani, Village Watika, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus

2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor. Ramswaroop Son Of Late Shri Radhey Shyam, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Tibawali Dhani, Village Watika, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur ( Rajasthan). Connected With ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4900/2024 Ramswaroop Son Of Shri Radheyshyam Saini, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of Teeba Wali Dhani Vatika, Police Station Sanganer Sadar, District Jaipur City South (Raj). ----Petitioner

4. Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (Raj). S.h.o. Police Station Sanganer Sadar, District Jaipur City South (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini, Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP [2025:RJ-JP:30755] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-2806/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 08/08/2025 In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2806/2025

1. This instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS (erstwhile 482 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioners seeking to quash the FIR No. 0464/2023, registered at Police Station Sanganer Sadar, District Jaipur City (South) for offences under Section 323, 341, 147 & 447 of IPC by petitioner, wherein later on after investigation, offences under Sections 148, 325 & 307 IPC have also been added.

2. Counsel for petitioners argued that the impugned FIR is a counterblast to FIR No.465/2023, lodged on behest of petitioners for offences under Sections 323, 341, 147, 447 & 308 IPC. It has been argued that indeed both parties belong to one family and dispute is in respect of stretching an iron wire fence over the land in question.

3. It has been further submitted that the complainant filed a revenue suit bearing no. 326/2007 before the Sub-Divisional Officer-II, Jaipur, which came to be dismissed vide order dated

18.07.2011. Thereagainst, appeal no. 467/2016 was filed before the Revenue Appeallate Authority which was also dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 28.03.2023. Thus, the impugned FIR has been lodged just to create pressure upon the petitioners to settle the dispute of encroachment and considering the underlaying dispute of civil nature, impugned FIR may be quashed. [2025:RJ-JP:30755] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-2806/2025]

4. Learned Public Prosecutor so also the counsel for complainant has opposed the petition and submits that petitioners are named in the FIR, who while equipped with blunt and sharp weapons, assaulted the complainant party and caused grievous injuries, one of the injury is dangerous to life. It has been submitted that during the course of investigation, petitioners have been found guilty of offence under Sections 147,148,341,323,325 & 307 of IPC. The pre-arrest bail applications of petitioners have been rejected upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned Public Prosecutor placed on record the factual report dated 15.05.2025 which is taken on record.

5. Having considered the rival submissions of counsels for both the parties and on perusal of the contents of FIR, this Court finds that all three petitioners are named in the FIR and on face value of the allegation of FIR, cognizable offences are make out against the petitioners. Moreover, after their investigation, on the basis of grievous injuries and injuries being dangerous to life, offences under Sections 325 & 307 IPC have also been added against the petitioners. Further, registration of counter FIR no. 465/2023 by and on behalf of petitioners clearly shows that a scuffle between two groups was arrived at maybe on the dispute of encroachment over the open land. Considering the nature of allegation and injuries and also on perusal of the factual report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor, possibility of involvement of petitioner in commission of heinous nature of offences may not be ruled out and it is difficult to hold that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present FIR. [2025:RJ-JP:30755] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-2806/2025]

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the principles laid down in case of State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335], elaborately considered the scope and extent of the powers of High Court to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2021 SCC OnLine SC 315], wherein the Apex Court observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/ complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made therein.

7. It is further noteworthy that the accused petitioners does not fall in any of the categories as expounded by the Apex Court in case of Choudhary Bhajan Lal (supra), to quash the impugned FIR in exercise of powers under Section 528 of the BNSS.

8. In view of above, the instant misc. petition is hereby dismissed.

9. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4900/2025 Petitioner-complainant has filed this criminal misc. petition for seeking fair, impartial and expeditious investigation in FIR no. 464/2023. A perusal of factual report dated 15.05.2025, which has been produced in the S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Peititon No. 2806/2025, filed by accused-petitioners to quash the FIR, goes to [2025:RJ-JP:30755] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-2806/2025] show that investigation has progressed further and offences under Sections 325 & 307 against the accused persons have also been added. In that view of the matter, since investigation is already under process, counsel for petitioner does not press this petition. Accordingly, the present misc. petition is hereby disposed of. All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Ronak Jaiman/8-9 (SUDESH BANSAL),J