Disposed

Shubham Sharma S/O Shri Arun Kumar, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 Oct 2025CRLMP/6861/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered under the Rajasthan Excise Act for possession of liquor found at a hotel. The Court held that the nature of allegations required investigation and declined to quash the FIR under Section 528 BNSS, allowing the petitioner to file a representation before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioner at liberty to file representation before Investigating Officer.

Shubham Sharma S/O Shri Arun Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6861/2025

¶3

Shubham Sharma S/o Shri Arun Kumar, Resident Of Karni Nagar, Makadwali Road, Police Station Christianganj, District Ajmer (Raj).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its P.p.

¶7

Bankat Singh Pradhikari, Excise Preventive Squad, Ajmer City, Ajmer.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Anindya Gupta for
	Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Gupta-PP

¶10

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

29/10/2025

¶13

By way of filing of this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No. 11/25-26 registered with Police Station, Excise Preventive Squad, Ajmer City for the offence under Section 19(4)/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of inspection of the hotel, the petitioner was not present at the location and behind his back, recovery of certain liquor was affected and on the basis of the same, the petitioner has been implicated as an accused. Counsel submits that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the alleged liquor/beer and even then the police has falsely been booked the petitioner in the instant

¶15

[CRLMP-6861/2025]

¶16

(2 of 2)

¶17

case, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶18

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the allegation made in the FIR reveals that cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner which is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency, hence interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶19

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record as well as the contents of FIR.

¶20

After going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that the nature of allegations made in the aforesaid FIR are the subject matter of investigation and the same cannot be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS.

¶21

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a representation before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶22

In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, he shall issue a notice to the petitioner as required under Section 35 of the BNSS.

¶23

In view of the above, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all other application(s), pending, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶24

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶25

Ashu/42

Shubham Sharma S/O Shri Arun Kumar, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Sharma S/O Shri Arun Kumar, 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

Amratlal S/O Shri Buddhram Vs State of Rajasthan

Gulabchand S/O Omprakash, Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhuramal Ujjaniya S/O Late Sh. Benaram Ujjaniya Vs State of Rajasthan

Raja Ram Agarwal S/O Shri Girdhari Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Yogi S/O Shri Ram Nath Yogi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Swami Ramanand Udaseen Sishya Shri Sukardev Muni Ji, Vs State of Rajasthan