Dismissed

Baljeet Yadav S/O Shri Gopi Ram Yadav, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Jul 2025CRLMP/2043/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging a concocted narrative and political rivalry. The High Court held that disputed factual questions are for investigation and refused to quash, directing a supervised investigation within eight weeks with no coercive action pending.

What did the court decide?

Investigation to be conducted under supervision within eight weeks; no coercive action against petitioner.

Baljeet Yadav S/O Shri Gopi Ram Yadav, Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:27260]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2043/2025

¶4

Baljeet Yadav S/o Shri Gopi Ram Yadav, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 27, Gyan Vihar, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

Mohit Yadav S/o Shri Jaswant Yadav, Resident Of Jaswant Nagar, Tijara Bypass, Sadar, Alwar.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Kapil Gupta Mr. Mahendra Shandilya
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP
		Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP
		Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶12

Judgment

¶13

22/07/2025

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gupta has submitted that the present FIR numbering 301/2024 required to be quashed for the reason that the same is lodged with concocted narratives on account of some political rivalry. It is further submitted that material witness and evidences state that the victim was not at the particular location where the alleged incident is said to be occurred.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has no faith in the investigating agency, as the first Investigating Officer was biased and was connected or known to the complainant. It is further submitted that the present

[2025:RJ-JP:27260]

[CRLMP-2043/2025]

(2 of 3)

complainant is son of sitting MLA and is therefore causing unwarranted impact on the investigation.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr. Yadav has submitted that vide order dated 29.11.2024 this Court had considered the issues and categorically gave an opportunity to file representation; additionally interim protection for a period of four weeks was granted. In case of adverse opinion and infringe being drawn by the investigation agency, it was directed that the investigation agencies will issue a notice under the relevant statute so that the petitioner will avail an alternate remedy, available in law.

¶21

Having heard the arguments contented by the learned counsel for the parties and in the foregoing facts and circumstances as whether the victim was at the place of incidence or not; or other issues are matter of investigation and trial. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS cannot conduct a mini-trial and evaluate the merits or demerits of the case; nevertheless disputed question of facts cannot be intervened with by this Court at this juncture. It is also noted that vide order dated 29.11.2024 the lis in hand was already considered.

¶22

In this regard reliance is placed upon the ratio encapsulated in R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab: AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and Ors. Bhajan Lal and Ors. :1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 686, M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and Anr.:(2001) 8 SCC 645, Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.:(2011) 7 SCC 59 and Anand Bhandari Vs.

[2025:RJ-JP:27260]

[CRLMP-2043/2025]

(3 of 3)

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.:(2013) 2 SCC 801 , whereby it is unanimously upheld that great care should be taken by the High Court before embarking to scrutinise the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in deciding whether the rarest of the rare case is made out to scuttle the prosecution in its inception.

¶27

In view of the above, this Court directs that the investigation in furtherance to the FIR bearing no. 301/2024 registered at Police Station Mandhan, District Kotputli-Behror be conducted and concluded under the supervision of concerned Superintendent of Police, within a period of eight weeks from the date of passing of this order. If the outcome of the investigation is against the petitioner, in that case, the petitioner can avail further legal remedies, available in law, within a period of fortnight, thereafter, till then no coercive action be taken against the petitioner.

¶28

Respective sides are directed to co-operate in the investigation, their submissions/representations be considered by the appropriate agency.

¶29

With the above-said directions, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed.

¶30

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶31

DEEPAK/35

Baljeet Yadav S/O Shri Gopi Ram Yadav, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baljeet Yadav S/O Shri Gopi Ram Yadav, 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singh Son of Shri Natthi Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Chand Saini S/O Chhotelal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Santosh Kumar S/O Late Shri Sohan Lal Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharampal Meena S/O Nainuram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Yashraj Singh Chandela S/O Late Shri Girdhari Lal Chandela, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sudheer Sharma, Son of Shri Chandra Prakash Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan