Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ranjeet Singh S/O Shri Narain Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation, on 17 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:27377]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4487/2021
URN: CRLMP / 8379U / 2021
Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Narain Singh, Aged About 55 Years,
Resident Of 85 Sona Badi, Gopalbadi Byepass, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation, Jaipur Through Superintendent
of Police.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.871/2010
URN: CRLMP / 1523U / 2010
Sanjay Dixit aged 49 years, son of Shri S.P. DixitResident of
1/16, Gandhi Nagar, Police.
—-Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau Of Investigation, Jaipur Through the
Superintendent of Police.
—-Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma,
Mr. Veerendra Singh,
Ms. Jaya Mitra,
Mr. Ravi Bhojak and
Ms. Manisha Meena
Mr. Anurag Sharma with
Mr. Anoop Meena
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jag Mohan Saxena, Sp.PP with
Mr. Chinmay Saxena and
Mr. Anupam Senagar
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
17/07/2026
Reportable
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:06:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 02:29:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27377] (2 of 12) [CRLMP-4487/2021]
1. Both the criminal misc. petitions have been submitted with a
common prayer to quash and set aside the impugned FIR No.RC
JAI 2010 S0007, registered at the Police Station Central Bureau of
Investigation at Jaipur, District Jaipur under Sections 12(1) and
12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 and under Sections 420, 467,
468 and 471 read with 120-B IPC.
2. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that SB Civil Writ
Petition No.11394/2009 was submitted by one Prahlad Gurjar
before this Court without impleading the petitioners as party
respondents in the array of cause title and the said writ petition
was submitted against the Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of External Affairs through Passport Officer and the State
of Rajasthan through the Chief Secretary with the following
prayers:
“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ
petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed and by
an appropriate writ, order or directions the non-
petitioner No.1 to 3 may kindly be asked to either
immediately prosecute Shri Ranjeet Singh under
Section 12(1) and Shri Sanjay Dixit under Section
12(2) of the Passport Act or this Hon’ble Court permit
the petitioner under Section 15 to prosecute the above
two persons for the offence committed by them.
Alternatively it is also prayed that if the permission of
Chief Secretary of State before prosecution is
considered to be required, the Chief Secretary of State
be directed to grant such permission to non-petitioner
No.1 to 3 or to the petitioner, as the case may be to
prosecute Shri Sanjay Dixit under Section 12(2) of the
Passport Act.
Any other appropriate relief which this Hon’ble
Court deems just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of this case, may kindly also be passed
in favour of the petitioner.”
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:06:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 02:29:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27377] (3 of 12) [CRLMP-4487/2021]
3. Counsels further submit that the said petition submitted by
Prahlad Gurjar was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 13.01.2010. Counsels further submit that
since the petitioners were not parties in the aforesaid SB Civil Writ
Petition No.11394/2009, the orders were passed for holding
inquiry and registration of criminal case, and they remained
unheard, hence under these circumstances they approached the
Division Bench by way of filing two different Special Appeals
bearing DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 155/2010 and
165/2010. The said appeals were disposed of by the Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.11.2010 and the order
dated 13.01.2010 passed by the Single Bench of this Court in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.11394/2009 was quashed and set aside and
a direction was issued to the Single Bench to rehear and decide
the petitions afresh along with the instant petition.
4. Counsels submit that in the meantime, the impugned FIR
was registered against the petitioners without conducting any
preliminary inquiry. Counsel submits that the passport of the
petitioner-Ranjeet Singh was impounded and the petitioner-Sanjay
Dixit withdrew the character certificate issued by him in favour of
Ranjeet Singh. The petitioners challenged the validity of the same
by way of filing these two misc. petitions before this Court.
5. Counsels further submit that all these petitions were clubbed
with SB Civil Writ Petition No.11394/2009 and a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.04.2025 directed the writ
petitioner i.e. Prahlad Gurjar to implead the petitioners-Ranjeet
Singh and Sanjay Dixit as party respondents in the array of cause
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:06:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 02:29:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27377] (4 of 12) [CRLMP-4487/2021]
title of SB Civil Writ Petition No.11394/2009. Counsel submits that
an order dated 03.04.2025 was passed whereby the petitioner-
Prahlad Gurjar was directed to file the amended title within a
period of two days and it was observed by the Court that in case
the order is not complied with the petition would be dismissed
automatically without further reference to the Court.
6. Counsels further submit that the aforesaid order was not
complied by the petitioner Prahlad Gurjar within the above
stipulated time as fixed by the Court and again the matter was
listed before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and on
18.11.2025, the Co-ordinate Bench after considering the above
factual aspect of the matter, passed a direction to list the matter
before the Registrar (Judicial) for passing appropriate orders in
pursuance of the per-emptory order dated 03.04.2025. Counsel
submits that thereafter the matter was listed before the Registrar
(Judicial) and on 19.01.2026, the writ petition submitted by
Prahlad Gurjar bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11394/2009 was
dismissed on account of non-compliance of the per-emptory order.
7. Learned counsels for the petitioners jointly submit that the
genesis/basis of registration of the impugned FIR is the order
dated 13.01.2010 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in SB Civil Writ Petition No.11394/2009 and the said order has
already been quashed and set aside by the Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 10.11.2010 passed in DB Special Appeal
(Writ) No. 155/2010 by remanding the matter to the Single Bench
of this Court for its adjudication on merits along with the two
instant misc. petitions, submitted by the petitioners herein.
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:06:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 02:29:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27377] (5 of 12) [CRLMP-4487/2021]
Counsels submit that once the order dated 13.01.2010, passed in
the aforesaid petition, is no more in picture and even the petition
submitted by the petitioner Prahlad Gurjar is no more in existence
as the same has already been dismissed on account of non-
cpmpliance of the peremptory order vide order dated 19.01.2026,
the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are not tenable
and the same are liable to be quashed.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Central Bureau of Investigation opposed the arguments raised by
counsels for the petitioners, but he is not in a position to
controvert the submissions made by them.
9. Heard and considered the submissions made the Bar and
perused the material available on the record.
10. Perusal of the record indicates that the genesis and the basis
of registration of the impugned FIR against the petitioner is the
order dated 13.01.2010 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11394/2009 submitted by one
Prahlad Gurjar, wherein the following directions were issued in
para 21 to 22, which read as under:
“21. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of. The
Registrar (Administration), of this Court shall
communicate a copy of this order to Director, CBI
accompanied by one set of paper book so that CBI may
apprise itself of the allegations for the purpose of
initiation of investigation, forthwith. It is expected that
the investigation would be accomplished with result
within a reasonable expedition and hopefully within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
The record of the office of Passport Officer, Jaipur
shall be collected by the Investigating Officer from the
custody of the Registrar (Admn.) of this Court. The(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:06:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 02:29:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27377] (6 of 12) [CRLMP-4487/2021]Investigating Officer shall proceed without any loss of
time. On the offence being disclosed, the CBI shall
register the same against such persons as may be
suspected to be involved. The parties are given liberty
to seek directions by moving appropriate application as
and when necessary.
22. Before parting with the matter, it is clarified that
whatsoever has been stated hereinabove, is based only
on the statements contained in the pleadings of the
parties, and is not intended in any manner, to record a
finding or to be a reflection of any of the parties or
anyone concerned.”
11. It appears that the petitioners were not impleaded as party-
respondents in the aforesaid writ petition and the order dated
13.01.2010 was passed in their absence and thereafter, the
impugned FIR has been registered against them.
12. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.01.2010, both the
petitioners approached the Division Bench of this Court by way of
filing two separate Special Appeals. The said Special Appeals were
disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
10.11.2010 with the following observations and directions:
“Counsel for respondent no.1 has also relied on
decision of Calcutta High Court in Ashok Kumar Todi vs.
Kishwar Jahan & Ors. decided on 18.5.2010to argue
that in this intra court appeal, opportunity can be
granted for filing of return to the appellants and matter
may be decided here afresh. We are not inclined to
adopt this recourse though, it may be permissible in the
peculiar facts of this case. As the petition u/s. 482
Cr.P.C. is pending before the Single Judge and there is
interim order of stay on filing of charge sheet, it is
considered appropriate in the facts and circumstances
of the case that these matters be heard and decided
together by Single Bench.
We direct hearing of both the matters together by
the Single Bench. Return be filed by the appellants
before the Single Bench within three weeks from today.
The appellants shall stand impleaded as respondents to
the petition. The impugned order dated 13.1.2010 is
set aside. It is made clear that we have not expressed(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:06:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 02:29:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27377] (7 of 12) [CRLMP-4487/2021]any opinion on the merits of the case and regarding the
investigation which has been made as it is subject
matter of petition filed u/s.482 Cr.P.C. We also make it
clear that due to setting aside of the order passed by
the Single Bench, the FIR which has been registered,
shall not be deemed to have been quashed
automatically as it is subject matter of the petition filed
u/s.482 Cr.P.C. and would be dependent upon the
outcome of these matters, which are to be heard
together.
With the above observations, both the appeals as
well as stay applications stand disposed of.”
13. In the light of the directions issued by the Division Bench of
this Court vide order dated 10.11.2010, all these matters came to
be listed before the Single Bench of this Court for hearing afresh.
14. However, when the matter was listed before the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court on 03.04.2025, following order was passed:
“List these matters on 07.04.2025.
In the meantime, learned counsel for the
petitioner in S.B.Criminal Writ Petition No.11394/2009
may file the amended cause-title in view of the
direction of the Division Bench passed on 10.11.2010 in
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.155/2010.
The petitioner has not filed the amended cause-
title even after passing of about fifteen years. The
petitioner is allowed two days’ time to file the amended
cause-title, failing which this criminal writ petition shall
stand dismissed automatically without further reference
to the Court.”
15. It appears that the aforesaid per-emptory order passed by
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was not complied with by the
writ petitioner-Prahlad Gurjar in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.11349/2009 within the stipulated time, as fixed by the Court.
The matter was listed before the other Co-ordinate Bench of this
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:06:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 02:29:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27377] (8 of 12) [CRLMP-4487/2021]
Court on 18.11.2025 and on the said day, the following order was
passed which reads as under:
“Matter comes upon application (No.1/2025) for
taking document i.e., prosecution sanction, filed on
behalf of the respondent Passport department.
Upon perusal of the file, it reveals that by order
dated13.01.2010, instant writ petition was earlier
disposed of. The order dated 13.01.2010 was assailed
before Hon’ble Division Bench by way of intra-court
appeal. Vide order dated 10.11.2010, Hon’ble Division
Bench disposed of the appeal and remanded the matter
to Single Bench to hear the instant writ petition afresh
along with connected misc petitions (No.871/2010).
While deciding appeal, it was observed that the
appellants therein who challenged order passed by
learned Single Judge are required to be impleaded as
respondents in the writ petition. It was also observed
that the appellants shall file their reply within three
weeks from the date of order i.e. 10.11.2010.
Thereafter, vide order dated 03.04.2025, the
petitioner was directed to file amended cause title in
pursuance of the directions passed by Division Bench
order dated 10.11.2010 and time was given to the
petitioner to do the needful, failing which, direction for
automatic dismissal of the writ petition, without further
reference of the Bench, was given. As per the report of
the concerned clerk, amended cause title has not been
filed and same has been filed on 05.04.2025 through e-
filing by counsel for the petitioner, which is according to
the procedure/guidelines issued by the Office in this
regard, is not sufficient compliance and as such, the
instant writ petition is to be sent and placed before
Registrar (Judicial) for passing appropriate orders in
pursuance of the per-emptory order dated 03.04.2025.
Thus, the instant writ petition be placed before
Registrar(Judicial) for passing appropriate orders in
pursuance of per-emptory order dated 03.04.2025.”
16. In-spite of passing of considerable time when the per-
emptory order dated 03.04.2025 and the subsequent order dated
18.11.2025 were not complied with, the matter was listed before
the Registrar (Judicial) on 19.01.2026 and the writ petition was
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:06:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 02:29:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27377] (9 of 12) [CRLMP-4487/2021]
dismissed for want of compliance of the peremptory order dated
03.04.2025.
17. It is worthy to note here that the writ petition submitted by
Prahlad Gurjar was dismissed on 19.01.2026 and more than six
months have passed thereafter and till date no restoration
application has been submitted for recalling of the orders dated
03.04.2025 and 19.01.2026 and for restoration of the aforesaid
writ petition to its original number, hence, under these
circumstances, when the petition seeking prayer to prosecute the
petitioner goes, nothing survives in the impugned FIR, which is an
outcome of the order dated 13.01.2010 passed by this Court,
which has already been quashed by the Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 10.11.2010.
18. Even otherwise also, it is the case of the complainant-Prahlad
Gurjar that without verification about the criminal antecedents of
the petitioner Ranjeet Singh, a character certificate has been
issued by the petitioner Sanjay Dixit and on the basis of which the
passport has been issued to the petitioner Rajneet Singh, hence,
he prayed for prosecution of both the petitioners by way of
registration of FIR against them.
This fact has come on the record that the passport was
impounded by the Passport Authorities and the petitioner-Sanjay
Dixit has submitted an application for withdrawal of the certificate
issued by him. It is worthy to note here that if the petitioner-
Sanjay Dixit might not have issued the certificate in favour of
Ranjeet Singh then also it was equal responsibility of the Passport
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:06:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 02:29:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27377] (10 of 12) [CRLMP-4487/2021]
Authority not to issue any Passport to him without getting police
verification done.
The Passport Authority was expected to lodge FIR but
nothing was done at their end except to impound the passport.
The complainant has submitted the petition No.11394/2009 with
multiple prayers including lodging of FIR against the petitioner, but
his petition was dismissed on 19.01.2026 on account of non-
compliance of the peremptory order and no effort has been made
by him to revive the aforesaid petition. It appears that he has lost
his interest to pursue his petition against the petitioners.
19. Once the very genesis or basis of the proceedings came to
an end up on its dismissal, the entire structure built upon it cannot
stand. Such situation reflects the well-established legal maxim
“sublato fundamento cadit opus” meaning thereby “when the
foundation is removed, the structure falls”. This principle signifies
that once the root or initial action/proceedings of a matter comes
to an end, every subsequent and consequential proceedings
arising therefrom automatically collapses. Any action that is wholly
dependent upon the original cause of action cannot survive once
the main claim/initial proceeding is dismissed.
20. It is the settled principle of law that when the origin, basis
and genesis of the matter comes to an end, all subsequent
proceedings arising of that matter came to an end automatically.
This principle flows from the maxim “cessante ratione legis, cessat
ipsa lex”, which means that when the reason for a law ceases, the
law itself ceases.
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:06:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 02:29:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27377] (11 of 12) [CRLMP-4487/2021]
21. This Court in the case of Badrilal Sharma and Ors. vs.
State of Rajasthan and Anr. while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc.
(Petition) No.7641/2024 on 01.05.2026, has taken a view that
if the genesis and origin of the an FIR is quashed and set-aside by
way of a judicial order passed by the Court, then continuation of
the proceeding, arising out of the said FIR amounts to abuse of
the process of law and the same cannot be allowed to continue.
22. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Badrinath
vs. Govt. of T.N. reported in (2000) 8 SCC 395 and State of
Kerala Vs. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam reported in
(2001)10 SCC 191 has observed that once the basis of a
proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would
fall to the ground automatically and this principle is applicable to
the judicial, quasi-judicial administrative proceedings equally.
23. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
both the instant criminal misc. petitions stand allowed. The
impugned FIR No.RC JAI 2010 S0007, registered at Police Station
Central Bureau of Investigation at Jaipur, District Jaipur under
Sections 12(1) and 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967 and Sections
420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B IPC stands
quashed and set-aside.
24. Consequences to follow.
25. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that the
impugned FIR under challenge in these petitions has not been
quashed on the merits of the matter. This Court has not examined
the allegations mentioned in the FIR. The impugned FIR is
quashed purely on the principles of the legal maxim “sublato
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:06:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 02:29:53 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:27377] (12 of 12) [CRLMP-4487/2021]
fundamento cadit opus” and “cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa
lex”. The reason for applying these legal maxims is that the origin
and genesis of the impugned FIR is no more in existence. The
order dated 13.01.2010 directing the investigation in the alleged
offence and registration of the FIR was quashed by the Division
Bench vide order dated 10.11.2010, while remanding the matter
back to the Single Bench and the main matter seeking registration
of FIR against the petitioner has already been dismissed vide
order dated 19.01.2026 for non-compliance of peremptory order.
In case, the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11394/2009 is restored to
its original number, the respondent-CBI would be at liberty to
move application for recalling of this order and revival of these
petitions.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
KuD/29-30
(Uploaded on 20/07/2026 at 06:06:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 21/07/2026 at 02:29:53 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
