Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Mohammad Sohil Son Of Mohammad Yasin vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:25293]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.90/2023
URN: CRLMP / 163U / 2023
Mohammad Sohil Son Of Mohammad Yasin, Resident Of Town
Fatehpur, Near Nawalgarh Puliya, Police Station Fatehpur Kotwali,
District Sikar (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
2. Farzana Bano Wife Of Mohammad Sohil D/o Shri Jafar
Hussain, Resident Of Ward No. 25, Bani Mohalla,
Udaipurwati, Police Station Udaipurwati, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP
Mr. Saransh Saini
Mr. Vinod Kr. Sharma
Ms. Ayushi Singh
Ms. Sanjana Choudhary
Mr. Neeraj Kr. Pal
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
07/07/2026
1. The instant misc. petition is listed before this Court in
pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan
(Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided
on 15.01.2026), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in
various matters, interim orders have been passed in criminal
revision petitions and petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as
a result of which trial relating to serious offences such as murder,
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 11:11:31 AM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 11:28:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:25293] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-90/2023]
rape, dacoity, dowry death, etc., could not proceed and remained
stalled/held up due to the passage of considerable time.
2. Directions have been issued to this Court and other High
Courts to take up such like matters which are pending since long,
on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring
the hearings to subsequent dates.
3. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a
challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.186/2022
registered with the Police Station Fatehpur Kotwali, District Sikar
for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 &
120B IPC.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the
allegations levelled in the impugned FIR, a forged Ration Card was
prepared by the petitioner on 08.07.2013, wherein he had
mentioned names of two children. Learned counsel submits that
the names of the children of certain other family members were
inadvertently mentioned, therefore, no offence is made out
against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the impugned
FIR has been registered by none other than the wife of the
petitioner on account of a matrimonial dispute pending between
them, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the arguments
raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the
complainant is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and no child
was born from their wedlock at the time of preparation of the
Ration Card, as the same was prepared on 08.07.2013 and a child
was born to them on 31.07.2015 i.e. after a period of two years
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 11:11:31 AM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 11:28:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:25293] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-90/2023]
from the date of preparation of forged Ration Card. He further
submits that aforesaid fake, fabricated and forged document was
prepared by the petitioner in order to avail benefits of government
schemes and for the aforesaid act of the petitioner the impugned
FIR has been registered against him. Hence, interference of this
Court is not warranted.
6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and
perused the material available on record.
7. A bare reading of the impugned FIR reveals commission of
cognizable offence. The correctness of the allegations levelled
against the petitioner in the FIR cannot be examined by this
Court, while exercising its inherent powers contained under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot conduct fishing and roving
enquiry to find out the truth behind the allegations levelled against
the petitioner, inasmuch as, this task has been assigned to the
Investigating Officer.
8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant
criminal misc. petition granting liberty to the petitioner to file an
appropriate representation before the Investigating Officer. It is
expected from the Investigating Officer to consider the same and
submit the conclusion report of investigation under Section 173
Cr.P.C. before the Competent Court, strictly in accordance with
law.
9. In case, the Investigating Officer finds any prima facie case
against the petitioner and wants to submit charge sheet against
him, he may do so, however, the petitioner be not arrested as the
interim order is operating in his favour from the date of filing of
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 11:11:31 AM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 11:28:29 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:25293] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-90/2023]
the misc. petition and his custodial investigation is not required for
the purpose of submission of charge-sheet/investigation.
10. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands
disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
5/Karan
(Uploaded on 13/07/2026 at 11:11:31 AM)
(Downloaded on 13/07/2026 at 11:28:29 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
