Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Vishnu Kumar Vishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:31107]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4620/2025
CNR: RJHC010519362025 | URN: CRLMP / 8091U / 2025
Shri Ram Vishnoi S/o Devi Chand, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Village Kundaki Post Veerawa Tehsil Chitalwana
District Jalore Rajasthan Presently Posted As Senior Teacher
Government Senior Secondary School Isrol District Jalore
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8271/2025
CNR: RJHC010901532025 | URN: CRLMP / 14548U / 2025
Joita Ram Deva S/o Shri Amba Ram Devasi, Aged About 36
Years, Village And Post Nainol Tehsil Sanchore District Jalore
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Devendra Kumar, Ci Sog Jaipur, Special Police Station Sog
,ats And Sog, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1992/2026
CNR: RJHC010240142026 | URN: CRLMP / 3649U / 2026
Vishnu Kumar Vishnoi S/o Shri Punma Ram, Aged About 24
Years, Resident Of Village Dadusan Bawarla District Jalore
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Devendra Kumar, Ci Sog Jaipur Special Police Station Sog
Ats Sog Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2956/2026
CNR: RJHC010273662026 | URN: CRLMP / 5292U / 2026
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 10:56:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:42:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31107] (2 of 10) [CRLMP-4620/2025]
Sundar Lal S/o Kalu Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Seraniyo Ki
Dhani, Siwada, District Jalore.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Devendra Kumar, The Then Ci Sog, Jaipur, Special Police
Station, Sog, Ats And Sog, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4137/2026
CNR: RJHC010477672026 | URN: CRLMP / 7450U / 2026
Vikram Kumar S/o Shri Prakash Chandra, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Haliwav, Ward No 06, Veerawa, District Jalore
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Devendra Kumar, Ci Sog, Jaipur, Special Police Station
Sog, Ats And Sog, Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria
Mr. Naresh Khatri
Mr. Shravan Kumar Bishnoi
Mr. Ashok Upadhyay
Mr. Surendra Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG
Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Manraj, Addl. SP, SOG, Jaipur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
13/07/2026
1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the
BNSS has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR
No.28/2025, registered at Police Station SOG, ATS & SOG, for
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 10:56:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:42:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31107] (3 of 10) [CRLMP-4620/2025]
the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC
and Sections 3, 7 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination
(Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means) Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the
petitioners are Government employees. It is submitted that,
pursuant to a subsequent decision taken by the State
Government, the earlier recruitments were ordered to be
scrutinized. During the course of such scrutiny/investigation into
the recruitment process, the present accused were allegedly found
to be involved in certain manipulations, whereupon the impugned
FIR came to be registered.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are
being proceeded against without there being sufficient material on
record. The allegation against the petitioners is essentially that the
photographs and signatures appearing on the application
forms/attendance sheets and other records do not match, thereby
giving rise to an allegation that some other persons had appeared
in the examination on their behalf and that the petitioners were
subsequently selected.
4. It is further submitted that certain records relating to the
examination had already been destroyed in accordance with the
relevant Government notification, but the Investigating Officer is
not taking the said fact into consideration.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
matter is being unnecessarily prolonged and that the investigation
is not progressing expeditiously.
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 10:56:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:42:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31107] (4 of 10) [CRLMP-4620/2025]
6. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that unless and until the specimen signatures of the
petitioners are obtained and the report of the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) is received, no coercive action ought to be taken
against them and they cannot be treated as having committed the
alleged offences merely on the basis of the aforesaid
discrepancies.
7. The Investigating Officer, who is present before the Court,
fairly submits that, out of the concerned candidates, the original
records pertaining to five candidates, including documents relating
to their appearance in the examination, have been procured from
the concerned Department. Upon examination of the said records,
material discrepancies/mismatches have prima facie been noticed
and, therefore, further investigation is being undertaken, including
obtaining specimen signatures and sending the same for forensic
examination, wherever required. It is submitted that action is
being taken upon collection and examination of relevant material.
8. It is also stated that notices have already been issued to the
said five candidates requiring them to join the investigation;
however, they have not joined the investigation pursuant thereto.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report,
which states that the FIR came to be registered only after
discrepancies were noticed in the attendance sheets, application
forms and the records available with the concerned Department,
giving rise to a prima facie suspicion that dummy candidates had
appeared in place of the petitioners. It is further stated that a
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 10:56:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:42:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31107] (5 of 10) [CRLMP-4620/2025]
communication has already been addressed to the RPSC seeking
the relevant records. The said records have not yet been received
and, upon receipt thereof, further action shall be taken in
accordance with law.
10. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the
factual/investigation report submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor.
11. From the material presently available, it appears that the
investigating agency is proceeding by procuring the relevant
records, examining the discrepancies therein and thereafter
proposing to obtain specimen signatures and forensic opinion,
wherever considered necessary. In view thereof, the apprehension
expressed by the petitioners that the investigating agency is
proceeding against them altogether without procuring or
examining the relevant records does not, at this stage, appear to
be borne out from the record.
12. This Court finds that a preliminary inquiry with regard to the
concerned candidates had already been conducted by the
Department and it was only thereafter that the FIR came to be
registered. The allegations contained in the FIR, read with the
material referred to in the factual report, prima facie disclose
commission of cognizable offences. The discrepancies allegedly
noticed in the attendance sheets, application forms and other
available departmental records constitute material requiring
investigation. Whether such discrepancies ultimately establish that
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 10:56:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:42:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31107] (6 of 10) [CRLMP-4620/2025]
dummy candidates had appeared on behalf of the petitioners, and
the precise role, if any, attributable to each of the petitioners, are
matters which can be determined only upon completion of the
investigation. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a detailed
examination of the evidentiary value or sufficiency of such
material.
13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in M/s Neeharika
Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 10
SCC 118, after considering the entire jurisprudence on the
subject, authoritatively summarized the governing principles in
paragraph 80 of the judgment. It was held that where the
allegations in the FIR and the material collected during
investigation prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable
offence, the High Court ought not to embark upon an appreciation
of the evidence or adjudicate upon the correctness of the
allegations while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS, as applicable). Ordinarily, the
investigation should be permitted to proceed unless the case falls
within the well-recognized exceptional categories. The relevant
observations are reproduced hereunder: –
“(ii) The Court should not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
(iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with
circumspection, in the rarest of rare cases;
(vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather
than an ordinary rule;
(x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result
in miscarriage of justice, the Courts and the judicial process
should not interfere at the stage of investigation;
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 10:56:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:42:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31107] (7 of 10) [CRLMP-4620/2025]
(xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia and the
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;
(xiv) However, at the same time, if the Court 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 and Bhajan Lal, the Court has
jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint;
(xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made, the Court has
only to consider whether the allegations disclose the commission
of a cognizable offence. The Court is not required to consider the
merits of the allegations or whether the allegations are likely to be
proved.”
14. In the present case, the allegations regarding mismatch of
photographs/signatures and discrepancies in the attendance
sheets, application forms and departmental records cannot, at this
preliminary stage, be said to be wholly irrelevant or incapable of
forming the basis of an investigation. The contention of the
petitioners that no case can be made out unless an FSL report is
first obtained essentially relates to the sufficiency and evidentiary
value of the material collected during investigation, which cannot
appropriately be adjudicated at this stage in proceedings under
Section 528 BNSS.
15. Thus, when the FIR and the material collected thus far prima
facie disclose cognizable offences and the investigation is still in
progress, this Court does not find the present cases falling within
any of the exceptional categories warranting quashing of the FIR
at the threshold. Interference with the investigation at this stage
would amount to entering into an assessment of the evidence
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 10:56:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:42:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31107] (8 of 10) [CRLMP-4620/2025]
before the investigating agency has been afforded an opportunity
to complete the investigation.
16. At the same time, the petitioners are Government employees
and the investigation pertains to recruitment examinations
conducted considerably earlier. The Investigating Officer himself
has stated before the Court that further action is being taken after
procurement and examination of the relevant records and that the
concerned candidates are being called upon to join the
investigation. The interests of justice would, therefore, be
adequately served by permitting the investigation to proceed
expeditiously while requiring the petitioners to cooperate with the
same.
17. Accordingly, while declining to quash the impugned FIR, the
present criminal misc. petitions are disposed of with the following
directions:-
(i) Before taking any coercive steps against any of the
petitioners, the Investigating Officer shall serve upon the
concerned petitioner a notice granting not less than thirty
(30) days’ time to appear before the Investigating Officer
and join the investigation.
(ii) A copy of the notice issued to a petitioners shall also be
forwarded through the Department/office in which such
petitioners are presently serving.
(iii) The petitioners shall be at liberty to submit
representations raising their respective contentions alongwith
any supporting documents/material. Any such representation
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 10:56:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:42:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31107] (9 of 10) [CRLMP-4620/2025]and material shall be duly considered by the Investigating
Officer in the course of investigation.
(iv) For the aforesaid notice period of 30 days, there shall
be a stay on the arrest of the petitioners, however, thereafter
the Investigating Agency is free to proceed in accordance
with law.
(v) Considering the period for which the matter has
remained under investigation and the fact that the
petitioners are serving employees whose careers may be
affected by prolonged uncertainty, the investigating agency
is expected to proceed with and conclude the investigation as
expeditiously as reasonably possible, in accordance with law.
(vi) The concerned Department/RPSC shall promptly furnish
to the SOG the records requisitioned by it and shall ensure
that no avoidable delay is caused in supplying the records
necessary for completion of the investigation.
18. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are
confined to the adjudication of the prayer for quashing of the FIR
at the present stage and shall not be construed as an expression
of opinion on the guilt or innocence of any of the petitioners. The
Investigating Officer shall independently evaluate the material
collected during investigation and proceed strictly in accordance
with law.
19. In view of the aforesaid, no ground for quashing of the
impugned FIR is made out. The criminal misc. petitions stand
disposed of in the above terms.
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 10:56:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:42:25 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31107] (10 of 10) [CRLMP-4620/2025]
20. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
71, 84, 89, 93, 96/Sanjay Tanwar/333
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 10:56:26 AM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:42:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
