Dismissed

Hanuman Choudhary Son of Shri Nandaram Choudhary, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Dec 2024CRLMP/5518/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench at Jaipur dismissed a petition seeking quashing of an FIR. Holding that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, the Court declined to interfere, directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of FIR No. 0242/2023 and stay application stand disposed of in the negative.

Hanuman Choudhary Son of Shri Nandaram Choudhary, Vs… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:50923]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5518/2023

¶4

Hanuman Choudhary Son of Shri Nandaram Choudhary, Resident of Village Post Arai, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer, through Power of Attorney Holder Azad Son of Harun, Resident of Village Milakpur Turk, Gotoli, District Alwar (Raj).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

Rajendra Prasad Son of Shri Ramlal, aged about 55 Years, Resident of Rundal, Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur, At Present A.S.I. Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur (Raj).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 313/2024

¶12

Hanuman Choudhary S/o Nandaram Choudhary, R/o Village And Post Arai, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer through Power of Attorney Holder Azad S/o Harun, R/o Village Milakpur Turk Gotoli, District Alwar (Rajasthan).

¶13

----Petitioner

¶14

Versus

¶15

State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor, Dudu, District Jaipur.

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Prasad Dhanera For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP

¶18

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶19

Order

¶20

11/12/2024

¶21

The instant petition has been preferred for quashing of FIR No.0242/2023 registered with Police Station Dudu, District Jaipur Rural.

(2 of 2)

[2024:RJ-JP:50923]

[CRLMP-5518/2023]

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on the record.

¶26

After going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that the allegations levelled in the FIR discloses that alleged offence is cognizable and matter requires investigation. While exercising the discretionary powers contained under Section 528 BNSS, this Court is not supposed to make a fishing and roving enquiry to embark upon the probe in order to ascertain the genuineness and reliability of the allegations levelled in the FIR. Certainly, it would be a task to be undertaken by the Investigating Officer, therefore, this Court does not deems it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation.

¶27

The petitioner may file a representation before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the averments of the same and in case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, he shall ensure compliance of the provision under Section 35(3) of BNSS.

¶28

With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition as well as the stay application stand disposed of.

¶29

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶30

GARIMA /117-118

Hanuman Choudhary Son of Shri Nandaram Choudhary, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanuman Choudhary Son of Shri Nandaram Choudhary, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetna Nagar D/O Shri Badri Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhruv Singh Son of Ramveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramratan S/O Ramesh Chand Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Subrato Bhattacharya Son of v. Bhattacharya Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhanendra Teji S/O Sh Ramlal Teji Vs Addl Chief Metropolitan Magistrate No. 8

Shubash Kumar Joshi S/O Madhusudhan Vs State of Rajasthan