Petition under Section 528 BNSS sought quashing of FIR and proceedings in a case involving alleged assault causing grievous hurt. The court held the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, no mini-trial or evidence appreciation was permissible at this stage, and dismissed the petition.
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.
[2026:RJ-JP:15225]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 893/2026
Deepak Meena Son Of Shri Bharatlal, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Toksi, Police Station Gangapur City, Currently Residing At Vasundhara Colony, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. |
Akash Sharma, Adv. for |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. | Fateh Ram Meena,Adv. | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. |
Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS
Judgment / Order
10/04/2026
1- izLrqr rdksZa dks e/;utj j[krs gq, dk;kZy; }kjk fudkys x;s vk{ksiksa dks oso fd;k tkrk gSA
2- ;kfpdk ij lquk x;kA ;kph&vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls ;g ;kfpdk varxZr /kkjk 528 ch-,u-,l-,l- ds rgr ifjoknh&izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls iqfyl Fkkuk&mnsbZ eksM] lokbZek/kksiqj esa iathc) djok;h x;h izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k 158@2025 vijk/k vUrxZr /kkjk 115¼2½] 126¼2½] 189¼2½] 303¼2½] 351¼2½] 351¼3½ ch-,u-,l- o mlls lacaf/kr fo}ku vfrfjDr eq[; U;kf;d eftLVªsV] xaxkiqj flVh ds le{k yafcr vkijkf/kd izdj.k la[;k 1156@2025 dh dk;Zokgh dks fujLr fd;s tkus gsrq izLrqr dh x;h gSA
3- fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph dk fuosnu gS fd dqN xokgku }kjk izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa dh iqf"V ugha dh gS vkSj bl vk/kkj ij
[2026:RJ-JP:15225]
[CRLMP-893/2026]
(2 of 4)
gLrxr izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ o vkuq"kkafxd dk;Zokgh dks fujLr fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
4- fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd }kjk ;kfpdk dk fojks/k djrs gq, tkfgj fd;k fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gSa] izdj.k esa vkjksi i= is'k gks pqdk gS] mijksDr vkjksiksa vFkok bl ;kfpdk ds ek/;e ls vfHk;qDr }kjk fy, x;s cpko ds laca/k esa vHkh vafre fu"d"kZ ugha fn;k tk ldrk] ;g fopkj.k dk fo"k; gS] vUr esa ;kfpdk [kkfjt fd;s tkus dk fuosnu fd;kA
5- nksuksa i{kksa ds rdksaZ ds lanHkZ esa vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA 6- orZeku ekeys esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDr ij ;g vkjksi gS fd mlus vU; vfHk;qDr ds lkFk feydj vkgr ds lkFk /kkjnkj gfFk;kjksa ls ekjihV dh ftlls mlds xaHkhj pksVsa vk;haA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa dks vkgr o izR;{kn'khZ xokgku }kjk vius /kkjk 180 ch-,u-,l-,l- ds dFkuksa esa nksgjk;k gSA ;fn Lora= xokg }kjk vuqla/kku ds nkSjku ?kVuk dh iqf"V ugha dh gS rks ;g cpko dk fo"k; gS] iqfyl }kjk ckn vuqla/kku vkjksi i= U;k;ky; esa izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gSA
7- ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and Ors with Sanjeet Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 ds iSjk la[;k&07 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS%&
"7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding
(3 of 4)
[2026:RJ-JP:15225]
[CRLMP-893/2026]
the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered."
8- blh izdkj ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk Kamaladevi Agarwal V. State of W.B. & Ors. (2002) 1 SCC 555 ds iSjk la[;k&07 esa ;g O;oLFkk izfrikfnr dh x;h gS%&
"7. This Court has consistently held that the revisional or inherent powers of quashing the proceedings at the initial stage should be exercised sparingly and only where the allegations made in the complaint or the FIR, even if taken it at the face value and accepted in entirety, do not prima facie discolse the commission of an offence. Disputed and controversial facts cannot be made the basis for the exercise of the jurisdiction."
9- mijksDr U;kf;d n"Vkarksa esa izfrikfnr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj Li"V gS fd izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djkus gsrq vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs le; izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr vkjksi rFkk vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls fy, x;s cpko o vU; lkexzh dh lR;rk] fo'oluh;rk vkfn ds laca/k esa laf{kIr tkap vFkok laf{kIr fopkj.k vuqKs; ugha gSA orZeku ekeys esa izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij laKs; vijk/k ds rRo izdV gks jgs gSaA ;g izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ U;k;ky;hu izfdz;k dk nq:i;ksx djus gsrq ntZ djk;h x;h gks] ,slk Li"V ekeyk ugha gS rFkk yxk;s x;s vkjksi vius vki esa vlaHkkO; gks] ,slh fLFkfr Hkh ugha gSA ckn vuqla/kku vkjksi i= Hkh izLrqr gks pqdk gS] vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls fy;s x;s cpko lk{; ds le; lqlaxr gks ldrs gSaA vfHk;qDr }kjk fy, x;s cpko ek= vk/kkj ij izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dks fujLr djus gsrq vUrfuZfgr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx la;r rjhds ls o iw.kZ lko/kkuh ds lkFk visf{kr gSA lkekU; :i ls tc rd lqn< vk/kkj ugha gksa] vuqla/kku vFkok fopkj.k dh izfdz;k dks jksdk tkuk vFkok ckf/kr fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA
[2026:RJ-JP:15225]
(4 of 4) [CRLMP-893/2026]
10mijksDr foospkukuqlkj izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ fujLr djus gsrq /kkjk 528 ch-,u-,l-,l- ds rgr {ks=kf/kdkfjrk dk iz;ksx gLrxr ekeys esa fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gSA
11ifj.kker% ;g ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gS] LFkxu izkFkZuk i= Hkh mDr izdkj ls vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA
(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J
Mittal /260
1 issue framed by the court
Whether inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS can be exercised to quash FIR No. 158/2025 when the FIR discloses cognizable offence ingredients.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttar Pradesh and Anrs. Vs. Akhil Sharda and Ors with Sanjeet Jaiswal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.Relied on¶7
2022 SCC OnLine SC 820 · Who else cites this
Kamaladevi Agarwal V. State of W.B. & Ors.Relied on¶8
(2002) 1 SCC 555 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Deepak Meena
State of Rajasthan
Dilkhush
Uma Shanker Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
