Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Himmat Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:50920) on 25 November, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:50920]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8855/2025
Himmat Ram S/o Ramaram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Chamunderi, Tehsil Bali, District Pali
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Jyotish Kumar S/o Mohanlal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Near Hanuman Mandir, Maliwas, Rohida, Tehsil Pindwara,
District Sirohi
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
25/11/2025
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having
perused the impugned FIR, this Court finds that the impugned FIR
discloses the commission of cognizable offences.
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has held
that the powers conferred upon High Court under Section 482
Cr.P.C. (528 BNSS) should not be exercised in a routine manner.
The inherent powers for quashing criminal proceedings at its
inception should be exercised in rarest of rare cases. The High
Court should use the inherent power seriously and sparingly and
particularly when the FIR discloses serious allegations against
accused persons.
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1)
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 06:52:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50920] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-8855/2025]
SCC 335, has illustrated the situations wherein, the extraordinary
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or the
inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (528 BNSS) can be
exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process
of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Hon'ble
the Supreme Court illustrated as under:-
"(a) 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;
(b) where the allegations in the First Information Report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R.
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;
(c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the
FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose 265 the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused;
(d) 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;
(e) 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
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused;
(f) 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;
(g) 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."
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 06:52:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50920] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-8855/2025]
4. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. vs.
State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-
"(i) Where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar
against the institution or continuance of the criminal
proceeding in respect of the offence alleged. Absence of
the requisite sanction may, for instance, furnish cases
under this category.
(ii) Where the allegations in the first information report
or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face
value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute
the offence alleged; in such cases no question of
appreciating evidence arises; it is a matter merely of
looking at the complaint or the first information report
to decide whether the offence alleged is disclosed or
not.
(iii) Where the allegations made against the accused
person do constitute an offence alleged but there is
either no legal evidence adduced in support of the case
or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to
prove the charge. In dealing with this class of cases it is
important to bear in mind the distinction between a case
where there is no legal evidence or where there is
evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent
with the accusation made and cases where there is legal
evidence which on its appreciation may or may not
support the accusation in question. In exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 561-A the High Court would
not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence
in question is reliable or not. That is the function of the
trial Magistrate, and ordinarily it would not be open to
any party to invoke the High Court's inherent
jurisdiction and contend that on a reasonable
appreciation of the evidence the accusation made
against the accused would not be sustained."
5. In view of aforesaid discussion and since the contents of the
FIR prima facie disclose commission of the cognizable offences;
taking into consideration the precedent law, this Court does not
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 06:52:06 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50920] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-8855/2025]
find any of the aforesaid conditions to be prima facie fulfilled in
the present case and thus, this Court is not inclined to exercise
the powers vested in it under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing
the FIR in question qua the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition as well as stay
application stand dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
320-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 06:52:06 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
