Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harish Bijaraniya vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:39738) on 24 September, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:39738]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6520/2024
1. Harish Bijaraniya S/o Rama Kishan, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Village Rajpura, Sikar Road, Kuchaman City, District
Deedwana-Kuchaman (Rajasthan)
2. Jugal Kishore S/o Hema Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village Rajpura, Sikar Road, Kuchaman City, District
Deedwana-Kuchaman (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ramniwas Bhati S/o Gobar Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/
o Bhatiyo Ka Bera, Jawasiya, Police Station Pipar City,
Jodhpur Rural (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deependra Singh Shekhawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.S. Jodha, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order
24/09/2024
1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking direction to the
respondents not to harass the petitioner in FIR No.146/2024 dated
24.06.2024, registered at Police Station Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur
City (West), for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B
of IPC.
2. Heard.
3. Complainant / respondent No.2, a registered contractor for
Indian Railways, lodged an FIR alleging therein that he submitted
a tender on June 21, 2021, to install lifts at Bhagat Ki Kothi
Railway Station, which was approved at a rate of ₹240 per square
[2024:RJ-JD:39738] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6520/2024]
foot for APC sheet installation. The complainant claimed that
petitioner No. 2 introduced him to petitioner No. 1, who is a dealer
of APC sheets operating a registered firm named R.K. Aluminum.
Respondent No.2 ordered 112 sheets on September 17, 2022,
transferring a total of ₹2,55,100 online. He alleged that due to the
delayed supply of goods, he could not complete the tender by the
deadline in October. After failing to receive a refund for the
amount paid, on a complaint filed by contractor, the Learned
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed the registration
of an FIR. Petitioners assert 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.
5. In the premise, it would not be appropriate to invoke the
discretionary jurisdiction vested under 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. Reference may also be had to a
judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Rana Ram Vs.
State of Rajasthan2.
1 (2014) 8 SCC 273
2 Criminal Misc. Petition No.4893/2024 dated 06.08.2024
[2024:RJ-JD:39738] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6520/2024]
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 fresh 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. 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
50-DhananjayS/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
