Jagdish Son of Amarjeet Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2025)

Jagdish Son of Amarjeet Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal misc. petition seeking quashing of FIR No.261/2024 (offences under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of BNS) deserves to be entertained, given the petitioners' submission that they are labourers falsely booked with no motive for the incident. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

On going through the contents of the F.I.R., the allegations therein disclose a cognizable offence and the matter requires investigation.

Key takeaways

While exercising the discretionary powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., this Court is not supposed to make a fishing and roving enquiry to embark upon the probe to ascertain the genuineness and reliability of the allegations in the F.I.R.; that is a task for the Investigating Agency.ratio¶¶21
The Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation, since ascertaining the genuineness and reliability of the F.I.R. allegations is a task to be undertaken by the Investigating Agency.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR refused — Section 528 B.N.S.S. — no 'fishing and roving enquiry' by High Court. Petitioners (labourers alleging false implication and absence of motive) sought quashing of FIR No.261/2024 of P.S. Uchchain, District Bharatpur, registered for offences under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of BNS. Examining the F.I.R. contents, the Court found the allegations disclose a cognizable offence requiring investigation, and held that while exercising the discretionary powers under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. the Court is not supposed to make a fishing and roving enquiry to embark upon the probe to ascertain the genuineness and reliability of the F.I.R. allegations — that being a task for the Investigating Agency — and therefore did not deem it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation. Liberty was given to the petitioners to file a representation before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider its averments and, if a cognizable offence is found against the petitioners, expedite the investigation and submit the result before the competent court. The criminal misc. petition, along with the stay application and other pending applications, stood dismissed. (Anoop Kumar Dhand, J.)

[2025:RJ-JP:756]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 32/2025

Jagdish son of Amarjeet, Aged About 28 Years, Resident of Village Sevla, Police Station Uchchain Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan).

Banti @ Manoj Son of Jay Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Resident of Village Bharkau Police Station Lakhanpur Distt. Bharatpur (Raj).

----Petitioners

Versus

State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

Seema Devi Wife of Late Shri Pawan Kumar, Resident of Village Sevla Police Station Uchchain Distt. Bharatpur (Rajasthan)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	D.S. Bagadia
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vivek Choudhary, PP

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

07/01/2025

By way of filing of this criminal misc. petition, the petitioners have made a prayer for quashing of the FIR No.261/2024, registered at Police Station Uchchain, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of BNS.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are labourers and they are not concerned whatsoever, with the incident in question and they have been falsely booked. Counsel further submits that there was no motive available with the petitioners to commit the alleged incident, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

[2025:RJ-JP:756]

[CRLMP-32/2025]

(2 of 2)

Heard and considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner as well as the Pubic Prosecutor and perused the contents of the FIR.

After going through the contents of the F.I.R., it appears that allegations levelled therein, disclose that the alleged offence is cognizable and the matter requires investigation. While exercising the discretionary powers contained under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 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 F.I.R. Certainly, it would be a task to be undertaken by the Investigating Agency, therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation.

However, the petitioners may file a representation before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the averments of the same and in case, during the investigation, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that any cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, he is supposed to expedite the proceeding of investigation and submit the result before the competent court of law.

With the aforesaid observations, this criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. Stay application and all other pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. accordingly.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

Garima/22