Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Dau Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:28950]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2148/2023
CNR: RJHC010262712023
URN: CRLMP / 4665U / 2023
Dau Lal S/o Sh. Pratap, Aged About 63 Years, B/c Kalal, R/o
Village Kundeli, Police Station And Tehsil Deogarh, District
Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Mithu Nath S/o Sh. Bheru Nath, B/c Kalbeliya, R/o Village
- Kundeli, Police Station And Tehsil Deogarh, District
Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chakravarti Singh Rathore.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, PP.
Mr. S.K. Maru.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
02/07/2026
1. Present criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 71/2023
registered at Police Station Deogarh, District Rajsamand, for
offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323 of IPC read with
section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. This Court, vide order dated 15.05.2023, granted interim
protection from arrest to petitioner and directed him to join the
investigation.
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 10:30:22 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/07/2026 at 05:53:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:28950] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-2148/2023]
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on an earlier
occasion, upon petitioner’s complaint, an FIR No. 70/2023 dated
24.03.2023 for offences under Sections 143, 447, 427 and 354
IPC was registered against respondent no. 2 and others.
Therefore, present FIR has been lodged to counterblast the
allegations levelled in earlier FIR lodged by petitioner.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor, while submitting Factual Report
submits that, upon completion of a detailed investigation and
consideration of the statements recorded and documents collected
during the course of investigation, offences punishable under
Sections 143, 341, 323, 324 of IPC read with section 3(1)(r)(s)
(g), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 have prima facie been found
to be established against the petitioner.
5. The Factual Report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor is
taken on record.
6. In considered opinion of this Court, since FIR prima facie
discloses commission of cognizable offences by petitioner,
therefore, no case is made out for quashing of the FIR.
7. This Court, while exercising powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., cannot minutely go into the correctness of allegations
levelled against petitioner. At this stage, this Court is not expected
to either scan the entire material available on record or to record
any definite finding thereon.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1)
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 10:30:22 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/07/2026 at 05:53:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:28950] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-2148/2023]
SCC 335, illustrated the situations in which 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 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
apolice 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;
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 10:30:22 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/07/2026 at 05:53:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:28950] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-2148/2023]
(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.”
9. In 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
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 10:30:22 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/07/2026 at 05:53:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:28950] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-2148/2023]
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.”
10. In view of aforesaid discussion and since the contents of FIR
prima facie disclose commission of cognizable offences, this Court
does not find any of aforesaid conditions to be prima facie fulfilled
in present case and thus, this Court is not inclined to exercise the
powers vested in it under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR
in question qua petitioner.
11. Since the investigation in present case has already been
concluded and custodial interrogation of petitioner is no longer
required, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of present
miscellaneous petition with liberty to petitioner to appear and
furnish bail bonds before learned Trial Court within a period of
fifteen days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order
and which shall be accepted by learned trial court on the very
same day, in accordance with law. In the event petitioner fails to
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 10:30:22 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/07/2026 at 05:53:04 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:28950] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-2148/2023]
appear and furnish bail bonds within the aforesaid period, learned
Trial Court shall be at liberty to proceed against him strictly in
accordance with law. It is further clarified that petitioner shall be
at liberty to raise all such grounds and contentions as may be
available to him before learned Trial Court at appropriate stage of
the proceedings.
12. Accordingly, present criminal misc. petition is disposed of.
13. Stay application and all other pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
21/Sumer Singh/635
(Uploaded on 09/07/2026 at 10:30:22 AM)
(Downloaded on 09/07/2026 at 05:53:04 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
