Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Madan Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:32233) on 22 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:32233]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 5817/2025
1. Madan Singh S/o Mangal Singh, Aged About 66 Years, R/o
Sagana, Devikot, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer.
2. Pratap Singh S/o Mangal Singh, Aged About 67 Years, R/o
Rajputo Ka Was, Sangana, Devikot, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
3. Narayan Singh S/o Amara Ram, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
Ward No 1, Sangana, Devikot, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
4. Heer Singh S/o Devi Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Ward No 1, Sangana, Devikot, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ravindrapal Singh Lilwat S/o Chanana Ram, Aged About
34 Years, R/o Bhelani, Tehsil Fatehgarh, P.s. Sangad,
Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Gupta
Mr. Parvez Khan Moyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sri Ram Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
22/07/2025
1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed by the
petitioners under Section 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing of
the FIR No.72/2025 registered at Police Station Sangad, District
Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 189(2), 329(3) and
324(4) of BNS and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va)
of SC/ST Act.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 09:44:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32233] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-5817/2025]
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material as made available to this Court as well as gone through
the niceties of the matter.
3. There are allegations in the FIR regarding beating,
threatening and using castiest slurs against the members of the
complainant party. The FIR indicates that on 20.6.2025, the
petitioners reached the field of the complainant – Ravindra Pal
Singh, who belongs to ST Community in two Camper Jeeps and
two Tractors with an intention to dispossess the complainant party
from the agricultural land situated at village Unda, District
Jaisalmer over which they claim their peaceful and uninterrupted
possession. The FIR discloses commission of cognizable offence;
thus, no case for quashing of the FIR is made out.
4. In the considered opinion of this Court, while exercising
powers under Section 528 BNSS this Court cannot minutely go
into the correctness of the allegations levelled against the
petitioners. At this stage, this Court is neither expected to scan
the entire material available on record nor record its findings on
each of the charges levelled against the present petitioners.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1)
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. The
Hon’ble Court illustrated as under:-
(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 09:44:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32233] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-5817/2025]
“(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
(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 09:44:23 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32233] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-5817/2025]the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.”
6. In view of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration
the precedent law, this Court does not 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 (482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing the impugned FIR
qua the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition as well as
stay application stands dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
90-TarunGoyal/-
(Downloaded on 22/07/2025 at 09:44:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)