The High Court declined to quash the FIR registering cognizable offences under the Rajasthan Excise Act against the petitioner. Relying on the guidelines in Bhajan Lal, the court held that allegations disclosed prima facie cognizable offences and allowed the petitioner to raise defence at the charge framing stage.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2024:RJ-JD:11370]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 927/2024
Tejpal Hudda S/o Hanuman Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Khandwa, Bhaleri, Dist. Churu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Mahendra Singh Soni |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Shrawan Kumar,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
06/03/2024
By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has prayed that the FIR No.24/2024 registered at Police Station Bhaleri, District Churu for the offences under Sections 19/54, 54(A) of Rajasthan Excise Act may be quashed and set aside.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Having heard and perused the case file, this Court finds that in the FIR, the allegations for committing cognizable offences have been levelled against the petitioner.
In view of the facts and taking into consideration the law laid down by Hon’ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335 , this Court is not inclined to continue with the present petition.
[2024:RJ-JD:11370]
[CRLMP-927/2024]
(2 of 2)
The instant criminal misc. petition so also the stay application stand disposed of accordingly.
The petitioner shall be at liberty to take appropriate remedy including putting forth their defence at the time of framing charges.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
244-TarunGoyal/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the FIR for offences under the Rajasthan Excise Act against the petitioner deserves to be quashed in exercise of inherent powers?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors.Referred¶17
1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 335 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tejpal Hudda
State Of Rajasthan
Shri Debisahay
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
