Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Anita Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:35774]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3299/2026
CNR: RJHC010375642026 | URN: CRLMP / 5922U / 2026
Anita Choudhary D/o Boduram Choudhary, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Village Champapura Post Machwa Via Kanwar Tehsil
Jhotwara Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Parihar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Chiranji Lal Meena, Adl. S.P./SOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
30/07/2026
1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the
BNSS has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of FIR
No.13/2026, registered at Special Police Station SOG, ATS & SOG,
for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468,471 and 120-B IPC.
2. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are
being proceeded against without there being sufficient material on
record. It is contended that the allegation against the petitioner is
essentially with regard to the submission of a forged degree
certificate.
3. The Investigating Officer (I.O.), who is present before the
Court, submits that the degree certificate produced by the
petitioner has been found to be forged. It is submitted that the
petitioner had initially furnished a degree purportedly issued by
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:43:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 03:10:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35774] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-3299/2026]
DBRAU, Agra, and thereafter produced another degree purportedly
issued by OPJS University. Although the latter degree is stated to
have been obtained subsequently, it bears a back date and is not
traceable in the records of OPJS University. Accordingly, it is
alleged to be forged. It is further submitted that the investigation
is still underway and further action shall be taken upon collection
and examination of the relevant material.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report
dated 28.07.2026, in which the involvement of the petitioner is
found.
5. 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.
6. The material collected during the preliminary inquiry,
including the discrepancies in the degree certificate furnished by
the petitioner and the fact that the degree purportedly issued by
OPJS University is stated to be untraceable in its records,
constitutes sufficient material to warrant investigation. Whether
the certificate is forged and the petitioner’s involvement therein
can only be determined upon completion of the investigation.At
this stage, this Court cannot undertake a detailed examination of
the evidentiary value or sufficiency of the material.
7. 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
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:43:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 03:10:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35774] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-3299/2026]
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;
(xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia and
the police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It
wouldbe 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,
regardbeing 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.”
8. Thus, when the FIR and the material collected thus far prima
facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences and the
investigation is still in progress, this Court does not find the
present case to fall within any of the exceptional categories
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:43:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 03:10:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35774] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-3299/2026]
warranting quashing of the FIR at the threshold. Interference with
the investigation at this stage would amount to undertaking an
assessment of the evidentiary value of the material before the
investigating agency has been afforded an opportunity to
complete the investigation.
9. In the circumstances, the interests of justice would be
adequately served by permitting the investigating agency to
proceed with the investigation in accordance with law while
requiring the petitioner to cooperate with the investigation.
10. Accordingly, while declining to quash the impugned FIR, the
present criminal misc. petition is disposed of with the following
directions:-
(i) Before taking any coercive steps against any of the petitioner,
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 the petitioner shall also be
forwarded through the Department/office in which such petitioner
is presently serving.
(iii) The petitioner shall be at liberty to submit representation
raising their respective contentions alongwith any supporting
documents/material. Any such representation 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 petitioner, however, thereafter the
Investigating Agency is free to proceed in accordance with law.
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:43:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 03:10:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35774] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-3299/2026]
(v) Considering the period for which the matter has remained
under investigation and the fact that the petitioner is serving
employees whose career 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/RSSB 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.
11. It is clarified that the observations made herein-above 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 the petitioner. The
Investigating Officer shall independently evaluate the material
collected during investigation and proceed strictly in accordance
with law.
12. In view of the aforesaid, no ground for quashing of the
impugned FIR is made out. The criminal misc. petition stand
disposed of in the above terms.
13. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
36/Divya Tak
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:43:24 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 03:10:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
