Bansi Lal vs State Of Rajasthan
2026 Latest Caselaw 5251 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Bansi Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 April, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:14784]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
               S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 371/2026

Bansi Lal S/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Saree
Chidawa Sultana Jhunjhunun Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Dayaram S/o Chandagiram, R/o Bas Kirtan Rajgarh
         Hamirwas Churu Rajasthan
                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :         Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)          :         Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA




                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

                                        Order

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS                                    16/02/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED                                    16/02/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART                                        Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT                                              06/04/2026

BY THE COURT:-

1. The present petition emanates from an FIR registered

against the petitioner-accused, Bansilal, alleging commission of

offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has invoked the

inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking quashment of the

impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising

therefrom.

2. The factual matrix, as discernible from the record, unfolds

that the complainant was allegedly approached by the petitioner in

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:02:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14784] (2 of 9) [CRLW-371/2026]

July, 2025 with an inducement that employment could be secured

for him in Singapore. In furtherance thereof, a sum of ₹6,10,000/-

was allegedly demanded.

2.1. It is asserted that on 30.08.2025, an amount of ₹30,000/-

was transferred by the complainant into the petitioner's bank

account. Subsequently, the complainant was instructed to reach

Delhi on 02.09.2025 along with the remaining amount in cash,

purportedly for the purpose of currency exchange.

2.2. The prosecution version further proceeds that on

03.09.2025, the petitioner took the complainant from Delhi to

Thailand and arranged his stay in a temporary and substandard

accommodation, while he himself purportedly left to exchange the

money. It is alleged that later in the day, the petitioner returned

and informed the complainant that he had been robbed at

gunpoint, thereby frustrating the proposed travel and

necessitating their return.

2.3. Thereafter, on 09.09.2025, both parties allegedly returned to

Delhi, and on 10.09.2025, the petitioner is stated to have issued a

cheque of ₹6,30,000/- dated 10.10.2025 in favour of the

complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner subsequently

caused closure of his bank account, thereby rendering the cheque

incapable of encashment. On the strength of these allegations, the

impugned FIR came to be registered.

2.4. Upon culmination of investigation, the police agency has

evaluated the entirety of material collected during investigation,

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:02:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14784] (3 of 9) [CRLW-371/2026]

including the statements of witnesses, banking transactions, and

surrounding circumstances.

2.5. The Investigating Agency, upon a comprehensive and

meticulous examination of the material collected during the course

of investigation, has arrived at the considered opinion that the

victim was dishonestly induced by the accused through deliberate

misrepresentation and deceitful conduct. Acting under such

inducement, and being misled by the false assurances so

extended, the victim was persuaded to part with valuable assets

and property in favour of the accused. The circumstances,

therefore, unmistakably disclose the essential ingredients

constituting the offence of cheating.

2.6. It is further submitted that the Investigating Agency, having

duly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence brought on

record, has filed its final report concluding that cogent, credible,

and legally admissible evidence has emerged during investigation.

Such evidence sufficiently establishes, at this stage, the prima

facie involvement of the accused in the commission of the alleged

offences.

2.7. In light of the foregoing findings, the Investigating Agency

has specifically opined that offences punishable under Sections

318(4) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 are

made out against the accused. The material collected

demonstrates a clear nexus between the acts of inducement, the

resultant delivery of property, and the culpable intent attributable

to the accused. Hence the instant Misc. Petition.

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:02:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14784] (4 of 9) [CRLW-371/2026]

3. This Court has bestowed its anxious consideration to the

submissions advanced, the material available on record, as well as

the conclusions drawn by the investigating agency.

4. At the outset, it is apposite to observe that the jurisdiction

under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now corresponding provisions) is to be

exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only in those cases

where the allegations, even if taken at their face value, fail to

disclose the commission of any offence or where the continuation

of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

4.1. The contours and ambit of the High Court's inherent

jurisdiction, particularly in the context of quashing of criminal

proceedings, including FIRs and complaints, have been

authoritatively and comprehensively delineated by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ch. Bhajan Lal &

Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 401 and have been further

elucidated in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State

of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401. In

the aforesaid decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

expansively expounded the principles governing the exercise of

inherent powers, especially in matters relating to quashing of

FIRs. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant extract from

Neeharika Infrastructure (supra) is reproduced hereunder:--

10. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge:

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:02:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14784] (5 of 9) [CRLW-371/2026]

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);

v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity

than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:02:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14784] (6 of 9) [CRLW-371/2026]

x) 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;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) 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. During or 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;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:02:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14784] (7 of 9) [CRLW-371/2026]

disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.

Applying the aforesaid settled principles of law to the facts of

the present case, this Court finds that the allegations levelled in

the impugned FIR cannot be said to be either inherently

improbable or devoid of the essential ingredients constituting

cognizable offences. On the contrary, the FIR, read as a whole,

discloses a consistent and prima facie plausible narrative wherein

the complainant has alleged that he was induced by the petitioner

on the pretext of securing overseas employment and, acting upon

such inducement, parted with substantial sums of money.

4.2. The sequence of events, as emerging from the record,

including the initial demand of money, the transfer of funds, the

travel undertaken by the complainant at the instance of the

petitioner, and the subsequent conduct attributed to the petitioner,

cumulatively give rise to serious allegations touching upon

dishonest inducement and fraudulent misrepresentation. At this

stage, it would be impermissible for this Court to meticulously

examine the veracity or otherwise of such allegations or to embark

upon a roving inquiry into disputed questions of fact.

4.3. This Court further finds that the material collected during the

course of investigation, including the statements of witnesses and

documentary evidence pertaining to financial transactions, prima

facie lends support to the prosecution version. The Investigating

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:02:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14784] (8 of 9) [CRLW-371/2026]

Agency, upon due consideration of such material, has already

opined that sufficient incriminating evidence exists to substantiate

the commission of offences under the relevant provisions of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Such a finding, at this stage,

cannot be brushed aside or substituted by this Court in exercise of

its inherent jurisdiction.

4.4. It is also noteworthy that the defence sought to be projected

by the petitioner, to the effect that the dispute is of a purely civil

or contractual nature, cannot be conclusively adjudicated at this

preliminary stage. The distinction between a mere breach of

contract and the offence of cheating hinges upon the intention of

the accused at the inception of the transaction, which is a matter

requiring evidence and can only be determined during trial.

4.5. In view of the settled position of law, this Court is conscious

of the fact that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now

corresponding provisions) is to be exercised sparingly, with

circumspection, and only in cases where the allegations do not

disclose any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly

attended with mala fide. The present case does not fall within

such exceptional categories warranting interference at the

threshold.

4.6. Rather, premature quashing of the FIR, in the face of specific

allegations supported by material collected during investigation,

would amount to stifling a legitimate prosecution and would be

contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

The petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the continuation of

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:02:56 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14784] (9 of 9) [CRLW-371/2026]

the criminal proceedings would result in abuse of the process of

law or miscarriage of justice.

4.7. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that a

prima facie case for proceeding against the petitioner is made out,

and the impugned FIR does not warrant interference in exercise of

inherent jurisdiction.

5. Accordingly, the present criminal writ petition, being devoid of

merit, is hereby dismissed. The stay petition, along with all

pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 197-Mamta/-

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:02:56 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)