Rasheed Ali vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:38720)
2024 Latest Caselaw 8207 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rasheed Ali vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:38720) on 19 September, 2024

[2024:RJ-JD:38720]

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                          JODHPUR
            S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6338/2024
Rasheed Ali S/o Babu Khan, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Mohalla
Kharnada, Purani Roshni, Ghar Road, Dist. Bikaner.
                                                   ----Petitioner
                            Versus
1.    State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.    Imarata Ram S/o Rameshwarlal Jat, Aged About 45 Years,
      R/o Swaroopdesar, Naal, Dist. Bikaner.
                                               ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Kshitij Vyas.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Dhanraj Vaishnav, P.P.
                                Mr. Sunil Bishnoi, for R/2.


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Order 19/09/2024

1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking direction to the

respondents not to harass the petitioner in FIR No.132/2023 dated

05.07.2023, registered at Police Station Pugal, Bikaner, for the

offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of IPC.

2. Heard.

3. It is stated that the controversy between the parties is civil

in nature, pertaining to the land in question. Regarding the

allegations under Section 468 of the IPC, learned counsel for the

petitioner argues that these are not attributable to the petitioner,

who is a bona fide purchaser of the property. If any wrongdoing is

to be attributed, it should be directed at the seller. Petitioner

asserts that FIR has been registered on the basis of false

allegations levelled against him. The same thus deserves to be

quashed.

4. Whether or not the allegations are false is a matter of

investigation, and it is not for this Court at this preliminary stage

to adjudicate on the same.

[2024:RJ-JD:38720] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-6338/2024]

5. In the premise, it would not be appropriate to invoke the

discretionary jurisdiction vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (now

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. Reference may also be had to a

judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rana Ram Vs.

State of Rajasthan2.

7. Petitioner is directed to join the investigation. If during the

investigation, in case any incriminating material of such nature is

found against the petitioner, which prima facie is suggestive of any

cognizable offence committed by him, warranting his custodial

interrogation, then a fresh notice under Section 35 of BNSS shall

be given to him so as to enable him to seek legal remedy in

accordance with the law.

8. Conversely, it is made clear that in case there is no

incriminating material found against the petitioners, appropriate

report be filed before the competent court expeditiously.

9. The instant petition is accordingly disposed of.

10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARUN MONGA),J 76-Sumit/-

1 (2014) 8 SCC 273

2 Criminal Misc. Petition No.4893/2024 dated 06.08.2024

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)