Pawan Kumar Aneja vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2717 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 11/2022

Pawan Kumar Aneja S/o Sri Jamnadas, Aged About 60 Years, B/c Aroda, R/o 2 C 4 Sukhadiyanagar, Dist. Sriganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Naresh Aneja S/o Jamnadas, B/c Aroda, R/o 3 A 22 Jhawharnagar, Dist. Sriganganagar.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

16/02/2022

This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has

been preferred by the petitioner for quashing of the FIR

No.567/2021 of Police Station Jawharnagar, Distt. Sriganganagar

for the offence under Section 452, 420, 467, 468, 504, 509 and

120-B IPC.

The impugned FIR has been lodged at the instance of

respondent No.2 with the allegations that on 26.09.2021, the

petitioner, who is his real brother made calls on his mobile phone

frequently and when the complainant did not attend the phone

calls made by the petitioner, then, the petitioner, at about 8:30

AM, has forcibly entered into complainant's house and demanded

keys of Hero Honda showroom, which the complainant's wife

refused to give. It is alleged that thereafter the petitioner started

quarreling with the complainant and his wife while abusing them.

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-11/2022]

It is also alleged that during the course of scuffle, complainant's

son Mohit came there and pushed the petitioner to avoid some

untoward incident and thereafter the petitioner left complainant's

house. It is also stated that though the petitioner was not

assaulted by anybody, he got admitted himself in the Government

Hospital and lodged a false FIR against the complainant, his son

and wife. It is further stated that the petitioner has also obtained

false medical certificate with the connivance of the government

doctor. It is stated that the petitioner has outraged modesty of

complainant's wife. The impugned FIR has been registered on the

basis of complaint field by the complainant in the court of the

ACJM No.1, Sriganganagar, wherein the investigation is going on.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as a

matter of fact, the impugned FIR is noting but a counter to the FIR

lodged by the petitioner on 27.09.2021. It is also submitted that

the petitioner did not attack or outrage modesty of complainant's

wife. It is further submitted that as a matter of fact, the

complainant and his son had assaulted the petitioner on

27.09.2021, but the complainant has filed this false FIR with the

intention to save himself and his family members in the FIR

lodged at the instance of the petitioner. It is also submitted that

the impugned FIR has been lodged after around more than one

and half months of the alleged incident.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, prayed that the

impugned FIR may kindly be quashed.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this

criminal misc. petition and argued that from a bare reading of the

impugned FIR, commission of offence is made out.

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-11/2022]

Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report

dated 06.01.2022, wherein it is mentioned that the police after

thorough investigation into the impugned FIR has concluded that

on 26.9.2021, at around 8:30 AM, the petitioner went to

complainant's house and while abusing the complainant and his

wife had forcibly entered into the house and, thereafter, some

altercation took place between the petitioner and complainant, his

son and wife, which resulted into the scuffle. Learned Public

Prosecutor has also submitted that at present the police has found

case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 452, 504

and 509 IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned FIR.

It is well settled that while exercising powers under Section

482 Cr.P.C. in case of quashing FIR, this Court is required to look

into truthfulness of the allegations and if from a bare reading of

the impugned FIR, case for commission of offence is made out.

The FIR in question cannot be quashed. In the present case from

reading of the FIR case for commission of offence is made out.

Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition being devoid of merit

is hereby dismissed.

The factual report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor is

taken on record.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 2-Arun/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)