Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust concerning a property agreement, citing delay in lodging and false cash-payment allegation. The Court held the FIR disclosed offences requiring investigation and found no Bhajan Lal ground to interfere; the petition was dismissed.
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:5042]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Jha on behalf of Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order
05/02/2025
[2025:RJ-JP:5042]
[CRLMP-8438/2024]
(2 of 4)
any action on the said report. Counsel also submits that there is allegation in the FIR that the amount of agreement of Rs.10,40,000/- was given as cash whereas the said allegation is totally false. Counsel further submits that the cheque amounting to Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the petitioner No.1 for the work done by him at temple.
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 48 482 of the Code which 482 we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(3 of 4)
[2025:RJ-JP:5042]
[CRLMP-8438/2024]
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com-plaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
(4 of 4)
[2025:RJ-JP:5042]
[CRLMP-8438/2024]
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J
Satyendra/103
2 issues framed by the court
Whether FIR No.244/2024 under Sections 420 and 406 IPC should be quashed as false and fabricated.
Whether the allegations in the FIR fall within the Bhajan Lal categories for quashing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan LalRelied on¶5
[1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Krishna @ Shri Krishna
Ramkishan
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
Surendra
Ganesh Ram Meena
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
