The High Court dismissed a petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking to quash an FIR registering offences under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) BNS. The Court held that allegations involved tampering with software causing revenue loss, requiring investigation rather than microscopic analysis.
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.
[2025:RJ-JP:16233]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2103/2025
Ramjilal Meena Son Of Shri Bherulal, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Ajmeripura, Tehsil Kotkhavda, District Jaipur (Raj). At Present Working As Programmer, Department Of Information Technology And Communication, Yojna Bhawan, C- Scheme, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Jai Singh Rathore |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG with |
| Mr. Manvendra Singh Chaudhary, PP | |
| and Mr. S.R. Dhakar, PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
16/04/2025
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the first FIR No.96/2025 dated 31.03.2025 registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur City (East), District Jaipur City (East) for offence under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and co-accused Suresh Kumar Taneja were serving as an administrative officer, therefore, they are not concerned with the allegation levelled in the FIR. It is further submitted that the
[2025:RJ-JP:16233]
[CRLMP-2103/2025]
(2 of 2)
Investigation Officer has approached the office of the petitioner to arrest him sans serving any notice/summon which reflects that the police authorities are hand in glove with the complainant and Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, Regional Transport Officer, who himself has committed the alleged crime. Lastly, it is submitted that a false and fabricated case is registered against the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petition filed under the provision of Section 528 of BNSS is not tenable for the reason that on perusal of the FIR, it is reflected that the petitioner was rendering service as a software programmer, that the petitioner has tempered with the software and carried out irregularities as alleged/specified in the FIR which has caused loss to the revenue and is dehors the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, that act committed by the petitioner is a crime against the public at large, that allegations levelled in the present FIR needs investigation, therefore relying upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others reported in 2008 (2) SCC 409, this Court cannot carry out a microscopic analysis of the same, thus, interference at nascent stage is not required.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
Keshav/34
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition for quashing of the FIR was tenable at the nascent stage of investigation?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And OthersReferred¶20
Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others reported in 2008 (2) SCC 409 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ramjilal Meena
State Of Rajasthan
Ramesh Pandey
SAMEER JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
