Narsingh Ram vs State And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 15480 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Narsingh Ram vs State And Anr on 14 November, 2025

[2025:RJ-JD:48258]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR



               S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 1473/2018

Narsinghram S/o Punaram, B/c Bawari, R/o Kalauna, Tehsil
Bilara, District Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       The State of Rajasthan
2.       Mr. Gumanaram S/o Late Shri Mohanram, R/o Kalauna,
         Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur.
                                                                 ----Respondents
                            Connected With


               S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 2065/2018


1.       Gauttamram S/o Motiram, Aged About 36 Years, B/c
         Bawari, R/o Village Kalauna, Teh. Bilara, District Jodhpur.
2.       Nemaram S/o Motiram, Aged About 40 Years, B/c Bawari,
         R/o Village Kalauna, Teh. Bilara, District Jodhpur.
3.       Gajaram S/o Mangalaram, Aged About 60 Years, B/c
         Bawari, R/o Village Kalauna, Teh. Bilara, District Jodhpur.
4.       Kaluram S/o Mangalaram, Aged About 65 Years, B/c
         Bawari, R/o Village Kalauna, Teh. Bilara, District Jodhpur.
5.       Bhikharam S/o Laburam, Aged About 50 Years, B/c
         Bawari, R/o Village Kalauna, Teh. Bilara, District Jodhpur.
6.       Baburam S/o Kewalram, Aged About 55 Years, B/c
         Bawari, R/o Village Kalauna, Teh. Bilara, District Jodhpur.
7.       Natharam S/o Chunaram, Aged About 50 Years, B/c
         Bawari, R/o Village Kalauna, Teh. Bilara, District Jodhpur.
8.       Jasaram S/o Laduram, Aged About 52 Years, B/c Bawari,
         R/o Village Kalauna, Teh. Bilara, District Jodhpur.
9.       Bheraram S/o Hamirram, Aged About 51 Years, B/c
         Bawari, R/o Village Kalauna, Teh. Bilara, District Jodhpur.
10.      Ramjiram S/o Pokarram, Aged About 58 Years, B/c
         Bawari, R/o Village Kalauna, Teh. Bilara, District Jodhpur.
                                                                   ----Petitioners


                      (Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:41:06 PM)
                     (Downloaded on 14/11/2025 at 06:37:08 PM)
 [2025:RJ-JD:48258]                          (2 of 10)                        [CRLMP-1473/2018]


                                            Versus
1.       State of Rajasthan, Through PP
2.       Mr. Gumanaram S/o Late Sh. Mohanram, Aged About 58
         Years, B/c Bawari, R/o Village Kalauna, Teh. Bilara,
         District Jodhpur.
                                                                           ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)                  :    Ms. Manju Choudhary, Mr. Rajesh
For Respondent(s)                  :    Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP



              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA


                                           ORDER

RESERVED ON                    :       03/11/2025
PRONOUNCED ON                  :       14/11/2025

1. These criminal misc. petitions have been filed under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'CrPC') for

quashing the FIR No.67 dated 18.03.2018 registered at Police

Station Bilara, Jodhpur Gramin for the offences under Sections

143, 306, 384, 385 and 500 IPC.

2. The subject FIR reads as under :

"1- ;g gS fd eqLrxhl dh iRuh eheknsoh cky cPpksa vius ihgj jkeiqfj;k tkdj lu 2005 es cSB xbZ rFkk eqLrxhl ds mij ngst dk >qBk eqdnek dj fn;k tks ,lhts,e dksVZ fcykMk esa fopkjkf/ku gSA lu 2005 ls yxkrkj vkt rd xzke dkykmuk ls ugh vkbZ gSA eqLrxh; dk cMk iq= o izgykn 16 o'kZ dk gS] oks Hkh viuh eka ds ikl ufugky jkeiqfj;k esa gh jgrk gS esjs ikl dHkh Hkh ugha vk;k gS xkao jkeiqfj;k ds ukFkqjke nsjkejke ckojh o lqesjjke] eheknsoh iq=h isekjke ckojh] ikapkjke ckojh xzke jkeiqfj;k okyks us esjs iq= izgykn dks cgyk Qqlyk djds lEckfM;k fu- >qejjke dh iRuh dks tcju fcuk "kknh fd;s mBk djds esjs ?kj ij Hkstus dh dksf"k"k dh rks eSus mudks ?kj esa izos"k ugha gksus fn;k rFkk eSus HkxoSbZ;k ds ekrk firk dks lqiqnZ dj fn;k fQj Hkh lHkh eqyftekuks oxS0 us md jk; gksdj iqoZ rS;kj djds vkil esa 'kM;a= djds fn0 18-12-17 dks xzke [kkfj;k ehBkiqj es lkaxfy;k/kq.kk ckojh lekt ds reke iap lHkh eqyfteku bdVs gq, tgka ij eqLrfxl o eqrfxl ds firk Jh eksgujke dks [kkfj;k ehBkiqj es lkaxfj;k /kq.kk ij ryx fd;k x;k tgka ge fnukad 18-12-17 dks fnu ds djhc 12 cts ds vkl ikl [kkfj;k ehBkiqj es lkaxfj;k /kq.kk ij igqaps tgka ij lHkh eqyfteku rFkk dfFkr [kki iap lHkh eqyfteku us eqLrxhl ds firk eksguhjke ij 2 yk[k 51 gtkj :i;s dk n.M yxk fn;k rFkk lHkh eqyfteku ds tqrs eksgujke ds flj es j[k dj /kqi es [kMk dj fn;k rc eksgujke us dgk fd izgykn jke esjs lkFk ;k esjs

(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:41:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48258] (3 of 10) [CRLMP-1473/2018]

iq= xqekujke ds lkFk ugh jgrk gSA rFkk es funksZ'k gw izgyknjke vius ekek lqpsjjke ckojh jkeiqfj;k ds ikl gh jgrk gSA bl ij eqykfteku ugh ekus rFkk esjs firk dks ckojh lekt ls cfg'kd`r dj fn;k rFkk dgk fd 251000:i;s n.M ds o eqykfteku dks ns"kh ?kh o ckfV;k djds f[kykus ij gh lekt esa fy;k tk;sxk rFkk esjh gqDdk ikuh ckok lekt ls can dj fn;k rFkk esjs firk dks gj rjg ls tfyy fd;k x;k bruk Hkkjh n.M ugh nsus ij lHkh eqyfteku us esjs firk dks vkRegR;k djus ds fy, nq'kizsfjr vFkkZr etcqj fd;k rFkk nq'izsj.k ds dkj.k esjs firk us fnukd 19-12-2017 dks dhV uk"kd ih fy;k ftlls mlfd fnukd 20-12-2017 dks Jhjke vLirky tks/kiqj esa e`R;q gks xbZA esjs firk dks vkRegR;k ds fy, leLr eqyfteku }kjk fd;s x;s nq'izsj.k ds fy, leLr eqyfteku nks'kh gSA eksgujke dh e`R;q ds iwoZ lkaxfy;k /kq.kk ij 2 yk[k 10 gtkj :i;s eqyftekuks us n.M Lo:i ys fy, rFkk 90 gtkj :i;s eksgujke dh e`R;q ds rhljs fnu tLlkjke dks tcju Hk; esa Mky dj ys fy;sA rFkk eqy- }kjk fy;k x;k n.M Lo:i :i;s eqLrfxl dks fnyk;k tkosA"

(Emphasis Supplied)

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that filing of FIR

is simply an outcome of ulterior motive with a view to create undue

pressure upon the petitioners. It is further submitted that the

complainant had lodged the false FIR with an intention of taking undue

benefit of his father's illness, previous medical history and old age

factor. It is also submitted that no such meeting was called in the

village, in which, allegedly the fine was imposed or the complainant's

father was insulted.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that

Narsingh Ram (petitioner in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1473/2018)

was not present at the site, which is clear from the attendance

certificate No.22 dated 24.03.2018 issued by the Principal of

Government Higher Secondary School, Jhank, wherein it is stated that

as per the school record, he never took leave from 18.12.2017 to

20.12.2017.

3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not fulfilled as there is no instigation

on the part of the accused petitioners to commit suicide by the

complainant's father. To buttress her arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioners has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble

(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:41:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48258] (4 of 10) [CRLMP-1473/2018]

Supreme Court in the case of Shenbagavalli & Ors. Vs. The

Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District & Anr. (Criminal

Appeal No.4268/2024 decided on 30.04.2025) and Jayedeepsinh

Pravinsinh Chavda & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (Criminal Appeal

No.005175/2024 decided on 10.12.2024).

4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the

criminal misc. petitions and has submitted that there is no, prima facie,

case in favour of petitioners to quash the impugned FIR. He further

submitted that inherent powers of the High Court are required to be

exercised in exceptional cases. Learned Public Prosecutor has also

submitted that after thorough investigation, offences under Sections

143, 306, 384, 385 and 500 IPC have been found proved against

the petitioners, however, charge-sheet is yet to be filed. Hence, he

has prayed to reject both the criminal misc. petitions.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival

submissions and perused the material on record.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana

Vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335

has laid down the guidelines for exercising inherent powers under

Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and criminal proceedings.

The relevant part of the said judgment is as under :-

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of

(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:41:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48258] (5 of 10) [CRLMP-1473/2018]

illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just

(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:41:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48258] (6 of 10) [CRLMP-1473/2018]

conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."

7. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Neeharika Infrastructure Vs. State of Maharashtra reported

in (2021) 19 SCC 401, has laid down the law regarding the

exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC.

"33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the "rarest of rare cases" (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty).

33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage.

33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule.

33.10. Save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences.

(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:41:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48258] (7 of 10) [CRLMP-1473/2018]

33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure.

33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 CrPC, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."

8. It is a settled law that scope of interference under Section 482

of CrPC for quashing FIR is extremely limited. The power is

required to be exercised by the court sparingly only in

circumstances where non-interference would result in miscarriage

of justice or the FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable

offence or in the cases where FIR is lodged with apparent malafide or

the proceedings are maliciously instituted.

9. The proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC are summary in

nature and the court is to merely examine whether the FIR can be

quashed at the preliminary stage. However, while exercising such

(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:41:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48258] (8 of 10) [CRLMP-1473/2018]

discretionary power, the court cannot examine the disputed questions of

fact which are required to be proved by leading evidence in trial. The

Court is not required to consider the merits of the allegations levelled in

the FIR as the veracity of allegations can only be adjudicated by the

trial court at the trial.

10. Having perused the material available on record, I am of the

considered view that the case of the petitioners does not fall in any of

the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above

cases. In the instant case, a perusal of FIR clearly discloses commission

of a cognizable offence by the petitioners. There is a specific allegation

that for not paying the heavy penalty, complainant's father was

instigated and compelled to commit suicide and due to instigation, the

complainant's father consumed pesticide on 19.12.2017 and died on

20.12.2017. In view of the specific allegation in the FIR, it cannot be

said that the contents of FIR do not disclose commission of a cognizable

offence.

11. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that petitioner

Narsingh Ram (petitioner in SB Criminal Misc. Petition No.1473/2018)

was not present at the site is a question of fact. This plea of alibi being

a matter of fact can be determined by leading evidence before the trial

court. The burden of proving the same lies on the accused-petitioners

and, therefore, this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction cannot

look into the said question of fact. In this regard, this Court finds

support from the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. reported in (2007)

7 SCC 378, wherein it is held as under :

"8. That apart, the plea taken by the respondent Kapil Dev Singh in his petition under Section 482 CrPC was that of

(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:41:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48258] (9 of 10) [CRLMP-1473/2018]

alibi. Section 103 of the Evidence Act says that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence, unless it is proved by any law that the proof of that fact lie on any particular person. The second illustration to Section 103 reads as under:

"B wishes the Court to believe that at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it."

This provision makes it obvious that the burden of establishing the plea of alibi set up by Respondent 2 in the petition filed by him under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court lay squarely upon him. There is hardly any doubt regarding this legal proposition. (See Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, Chandrika Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and State of Haryana v. Sher Singh.) This could be done by leading evidence in the trial and not by filing some affidavits before the High Court. In such a case the prosecution would have got an opportunity to cross- examine those witnesses and demonstrate that their testimony was not correct. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in fact no affidavits were filed in the High Court but what was filed were copies of two or three affidavits which were given by some persons before the Superintendent of Police, Allahabad. Thus, there was absolutely no legal evidence in support of the plea of alibi of Kapil Dev Singh, which the High Court chose to rely upon and accept for the purpose of quashing the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge."

12. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners are distinguishable

on facts as in both the cases, the FIR was not under challenge. In the

case of Shenbagavalli (supra), challenge was laid to the charge-sheet.

Moreover, the incident which allegedly instigated the deceased therein

to commit suicide took place on 10.11.2013 and the actual date of

suicide was 09.12.2013. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore inter

alia, holding that merely on the basis of allegations of harassment and

that too a month ago with in between there being no contact of any sort

on the part of the appellants, quashed the proceedings.

(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:41:06 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:48258] (10 of 10) [CRLMP-1473/2018]

13. However, in the instant case, charge-sheet is yet to be filed.

Further, there is proximity between the date of the alleged incident and

the date of death. The incident allegedly took place on 18.12.2017, the

deceased consumed pesticide on 19.12.2017 and died on 20.12.2017.

14. In the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda (supra),

appellants had earlier sought quashing of the FIR, which was dismissed

by the High Court and even the Special Leave Petition before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said dismissal order was dismissed

as withdrawn. Subsequently, only at the stage of seeking discharge, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal on the merits of the

case. However, the instant case is at primary stage as charge-sheet has

not been filed. The judgments relied upon by counsel for the

petitioners, therefore, do not advance the case of the petitioners.

15. As a result of the above discussion, no case for quashing of

subject FIR is made out. Accordingly, these criminal misc. petitions are

dismissed. Stay petitions are also dismissed.

16. It goes without saying that the petitioners are at liberty to raise

all the objections at the time of framing of charge before the trial court.

17. All the pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(SANDEEP TANEJA),J ms rathore

(Uploaded on 14/11/2025 at 04:41:06 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)