Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Neelam Devi vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:38306) on 17 September, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:38306]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5688/2023
Neelam Devi W/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 8/b,
Alipore Road, Kolkata-700027
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ramgopal Chandak S/o Devkishan Chandak, R/o Infront
Of Magilal Bagdi Collage, Nokha,bikaner(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
with Mr. R.S. Bhati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
17/09/2024
1. Quashing of an FIR No.327/2023, dated 27.06.2023,
registered at P.S. Nokha, Bikaner for the offences under Sections
420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, is sought herein.
2. Heard.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the FIR in
question has been lodged for the sole purpose of harassing the
petitioner with an intention to extort money and to grab the land.
He would further urge that from the contents of the FIR, it reveals
that the dispute is with regard to the identification of the land,
belonging to the wife of the complainant and one Mani Ram. The
FIR in question has been lodged as a counter-blast to the FIR
lodged earlier by Mani Ram. The matter is purely of civil nature.
He would also submit that if the impugned FIR is allowed to stand
[2024:RJ-JD:38306] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5688/2023]
qua her, it will cause serious prejudice to the petitioner. It will also
cause serious harassment to the petitioner. The FIR in question,
thus, deserves to be quashed.
4. Whether or not the allegations in FIR are false is a matter of
investigation, and it is not for this Court at this preliminary stage
to adjudicate on the same.
5. In the premise, it would not be appropriate to invoke the
discretionary jurisdiction vested under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now
Section 528 of BNSS) and quash the FIR summarily on the basis
of self serving affidavit of petitioners/accused. It is expected of
the Investigating Agency to proceed further in accordance with the
law.
6. However, it is expected of the Investigating Officer to strictly
follow the guidelines rendered by Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar
Vs. State of Bihar and Anr1.
7. Petitioners are directed to join the investigation. If during the
investigation, in case any incriminating material of such nature is
found against the petitioners, which prima facie is suggestive of
any cognizable offence committed by them, warranting their
custodial interrogation, then a prior notice under Section 35 of
BNSS shall be given to them so as to enable them to seek legal
remedy in accordance with the law.
8. In the parting, I may hasten to add here that it is expected
of the respondents to go through the judgment rendered by this
Court in the case of Rana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
[S.B. Criminal Misc. Pet. No.4893/2024, decided on
06.08.2024] and take steps in accordance with law.
1 (2014) 8 SCC 273
[2024:RJ-JD:38306] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5688/2023]
9. The instant petition is accordingly disposed of.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J.
122-skm/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
