Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ajay Arya vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:31943]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2087/2025
CNR: RJHC010253052025
URN: CRLMP / 3630U / 2025
1. Ajay Arya S/o Lajpat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 24
Ambika City Police Station Sadar Dist. Shriganganagar.
2. Shourabh Chawla S/o Ramesh Kumar, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Chunaveda Dist. Shriganganagar.
3. Saloni Chawla W/o Shourabh Chawla, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Chunaveda, Dist. Shriganganagar.
4. Karamjeet Singh S/o Malkeet Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Kaliya Dist. Shriganganagar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Subhas Chandra S/o Not Known, R/o Sho Ps Sadar Dist.
Shriganganagar.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2478/2025
CNR: RJHC010291442025
URN: CRLMP / 4211U / 2025
1. Manish Yadav S/o Dev Raj Yadav, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Ward No. 13, 6 F Bada, Dist. Ganganagar.
2. Prmod Yadav S/o Devraj Yadav, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Chak 6F 2Nd 6F Dist. Sriganganagar.
3. Bhajanlal S/o Hariram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward
No. 01, Near B R Public School, Dist. Ganganagar.
4. Satpal S/o Prem Kumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Waryam Khera, Dist. Firozpur Punjab.
5. Rajindra Singh S/o Pram Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, R/
o Waryam Khera, Dist. Firozpur Punjab.
6. Baljeet Singh S/o Gurcharan Singh, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o Shergarh, Dist. Firozpur Punjab.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Subhash Chandra S/o Unknown, Sho Ps Sadar Dist.
Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4306/2025
CNR: RJHC010484122025
URN: CRLMP / 7474U / 2025
1. Lajpat S/o Sh. Chunnilal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 24,
Ambika City 2, Sri Ganganagar, Sadar Ganganagar,
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.p
2. Deepak S/o Sh. Lajpat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 24,
Ambika City 2, Sri Ganganagar, Sadar Ganganagar,
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 08:35:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:46:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31943] (2 of 13) [CRLMP-2087/2025]
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Vyas
Mr. S.K. Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. Shiv Singh
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
Reportable
16/07/2026
1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed
under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (for short, “BNSS”), seeking quashing of FIR No.46/2025
registered at Police Station Sadar Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3),
111(4), 111(6), 317(2), 317(5), 318(4) and 61(2)(b) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”), along with
Sections 66-C and 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
impugned FIR is wholly unsustainable in law, being a second FIR
in respect of the very same transaction. It is contended that an
earlier FIR bearing No.38/2025 had already been registered at
Police Station Purani Abadi for the offences under Sections 420,
406 and 120-B IPC on substantially the same allegations and
therefore, registration of the present FIR No.46/2025 is
impermissible. It is further submitted that the present FIR is
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 08:35:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:46:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31943] (3 of 13) [CRLMP-2087/2025]
merely an offshoot of the investigation conducted in the earlier
FIR and does not disclose any fresh or independent transaction
warranting registration of a separate FIR.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged occurrence
pertains to the year 2023, and therefore invocation of the
provisions of the BNS, which came into force subsequently, is ex
facie illegal. It is also contended that mere recovery of ATM cards,
laptops, computers, mobile phones or other articles from the
possession of the petitioners, even if accepted on its face value,
does not satisfy the ingredients of organised crime punishable
under Section 111 BNS. On these grounds, quashing of the
impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings has been prayed
for.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.T. Antony v.
State of Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, contending
that registration of a second FIR in respect of the same incident or
transaction is impermissible in law and amounts to an abuse of
the process of investigation.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the petition. The case
diary has been produced before the Court along with the factual
report concerning the investigation. Reply to the petition has also
been filed by the State. The same are taken on record.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the earlier FIR
No.38/2025 was lodged at the instance of a private complainant
alleging that he had been cheated of a substantial amount of
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 08:35:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:46:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31943] (4 of 13) [CRLMP-2087/2025]
money, whereupon offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B
IPC were registered. During investigation, however, it was found
that the occurrence forming the subject matter of the said
complaint had taken place outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
concerned Police Station and accordingly a Final Report came to
be submitted.
7. It is submitted that the present FIR stands on an entirely
different footing. During the course of investigation, a search was
conducted at the premises of the petitioners and several articles,
including cash, numerous ATM cards, laptops, rubber stamps,
cheque books, computers, mobile phones and property-related
documents, were recovered. During further investigation, various
bank accounts and mobile numbers associated with the petitioners
were allegedly found linked with a large number of cyber-fraud
complaints.
8. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the material so
discovered disclosed allegations extending far beyond the
individual transaction forming the subject matter of FIR
No.38/2025 and indicated the petitioners’ alleged involvement in
organised cyber-fraud activities. It was in the backdrop of such
material that the present FIR came to be registered. Thus,
according to the State, the present FIR relates to distinct and
substantially wider criminal activity and cannot be termed a
second FIR in respect of the same transaction.
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 08:35:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:46:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31943] (5 of 13) [CRLMP-2087/2025]
9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record, including the case diary produced
before the Court.
10. The material collected during investigation prima facie
reveals that the petitioners were allegedly engaged in Forex
trading through their company, Cappmorefx. It is alleged that
persons were induced to invest substantial amounts on the
representation that such investments would yield high returns and
substantial profits. The amounts so received were allegedly routed
through different fake firms and bank accounts and thereafter
withdrawn.
11. The investigation further indicates allegations relating to
transactions in virtual currency/USDT. The petitioners are alleged
to have been engaged in purchase and sale of Forex/USDT
through different persons and by using online platforms, including
Telegram. The proceeds of the alleged fraudulent transactions
were allegedly routed through cash transactions and different
bank accounts and were thereafter utilised, inter alia, for
acquisition of properties in the names of the petitioners and their
family members.
12. More significantly, according to the investigation, various
bank accounts and mobile numbers associated with the petitioners
were found linked with numerous cyber-fraud complaints. The
material placed before the Court indicates allegations of victims
having been cheated through different modes and methods. Apart
from inducement of persons to invest substantial amounts under
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 08:35:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:46:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31943] (6 of 13) [CRLMP-2087/2025]
the guise of Forex trading through Cappmorefx, allegations
regarding cheating of unemployed persons on the pretext of
providing employment and other fraudulent transactions have also
surfaced during investigation. During the search conducted at the
residential premises of the accused, cash, ATM cards, property
documents and other articles were recovered. Proceedings under
Section 107 BNSS have also been initiated in respect of properties
alleged to have been acquired from the proceeds of crime.
13. The first question which arises for consideration is whether
FIR No.46/2025 is liable to be quashed merely because the
material which led to its registration surfaced during investigation
of the earlier FIR No.38/2025.
14. The law in regard to registration of a second FIR is well
settled. There cannot ordinarily be a second FIR in relation to the
same incident, occurrence or transaction merely on the basis of
further information received during investigation. The Court is
required to examine whether the two FIRs relate to the same
occurrence or to different incidents or transactions. Where the
subsequent information merely relates to further material
concerning the very same transaction, it is ordinarily required to
be investigated as part of the first FIR. Conversely, where the
subsequent information discloses a distinct incident or criminal
activity which does not form part of the same transaction,
registration of a separate FIR is not prohibited.
15. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan
versus Surendra Singh Rathore reported in 2025 INSC 248,
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 08:35:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:46:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31943] (7 of 13) [CRLMP-2087/2025]
while considering its earlier decisions in T.T. Antony v. State of
Kerala reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, Anju Chaudhary v.
State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384, Kari Choudhary v. Sita
Devi, (2002) 1 SCC 714, Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash,
(2004) 13 SCC 292, Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12
SCC 254, and Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab,
(2009) 1 SCC 441, has clearly held that where the subsequent
information discloses a distinct incident or criminal activity, the
scope and ambit of the two FIRs are different, or the subsequent
FIR reveals a larger conspiracy, registration of the second FIR is
legally permissible. The relevant observations contained in
paragraphs 9 to 9.5 of the said judgment are reproduced
hereunder:
“9. From the above conspectus of judgments, inter alia, the
following principles emerge regarding the permissibility of the
registration of a second FIR:
9.1 When the second FIR is counter-complaint or presents a rival
version of a set of facts, in reference to which an earlier FIR
already stands registered.
9.2 When the ambit of the two FIRs is different even though they
may arise from the same set of circumstances.
9.3 When investigation and/or other avenues reveal the earlier FIR
or set of facts to be part of a larger conspiracy.
9.4 When investigation and/or persons related to the incident
bring to the light hitherto unknown facts or circumstances.
9.5 Where the incident is separate; offences are similar or
different.”
16. In the present case, FIR No.38/2025 arose out of an
individual complaint alleging cheating of a particular complainant.
The scope of the present FIR, however, is substantially different.
The material collected during investigation prima facie discloses
allegations concerning operation of several bank accounts, Forex/
USDT transactions, linkage of bank accounts and mobile numbers
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 08:35:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:46:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31943] (8 of 13) [CRLMP-2087/2025]
with numerous cyber-fraud complaints, inducement of several
persons to make investments, other modes of alleged cheating
and acquisition of properties from the alleged proceeds thereof.
17. Thus, the nature and scope of the allegations forming the
subject matter of the present FIR are prima facie materially wider
and distinct from the individual transaction which formed the basis
of FIR No.38/2025. The investigation revealed that the earlier FIR
to be a part of a larger conspiracy regarding Cyber fraud. Mere
circumstance that the material leading to registration of the
present FIR surfaced during investigation of the earlier FIR would
not, by itself, render the subsequent FIR impermissible. What is
material is the nature of the criminal activity disclosed by such
material and whether it constitutes part of the same transaction.
18. Upon consideration of the allegations and the material
presently available, this Court is unable to hold, at this stage, that
both FIRs relate to one and the same transaction so as to render
FIR No.46/2025 impermissible in law. The contention of the
petitioners that the present FIR is liable to be quashed merely
because it originated from material recovered during investigation
of FIR No.38/2025 is, therefore, not acceptable.
19. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is
that the allegations in the earlier FIR relate to the year 2023, and
since the present FIR has arisen out of the investigation of that
FIR, the provisions of the BNS cannot be invoked.
20. The contention cannot be accepted at this stage. As noticed
above, the present FIR is not confined to the transaction forming
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 08:35:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:46:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31943] (9 of 13) [CRLMP-2087/2025]
the subject matter of the earlier FIR. During investigation, further
material was recovered which prima facie disclosed allegations of
wider and distinct criminal activities involving several bank
accounts, cyber-fraud complaints and other transactions.
Therefore, merely because such material came to light during
investigation of an FIR relating to the year 2023 would not, by
itself, make the provisions of the BNS inapplicable.
21. The applicability of the BNS would depend upon when the
acts constituting the offences alleged in the present FIR were
committed. The same can be determined on the basis of the
material collected during investigation. Thus, at this stage the
present FIR cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the
earlier FIR related to a transaction of the year 2023.
22. So far as the applicability of Section 111 BNS is concerned,
learned counsel for the petitioners contends that mere recovery of
electronic devices, ATM cards, cheque books and other articles
would not constitute an offence of organised crime.
23. There can be no dispute that mere recovery of such articles,
by itself, would not satisfy the ingredients of Section 111 BNS.
However, the prosecution case is not based on the recoveries
alone. The investigation has also revealed numerous bank
accounts and mobile numbers allegedly linked with cyber-fraud
complaints, inducement of several persons to make investments,
Forex/USDT transactions, routing of the alleged proceeds through
different accounts and acquisition of properties therefrom.
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 08:35:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:46:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31943] (10 of 13) [CRLMP-2087/2025]
24. Whether the material collected during investigation
ultimately satisfies all the ingredients of Section 111 BNS,
including those relating to continuing unlawful activity, is a matter
to be examined on completion of investigation. At this stage, the
Court is not required to undertake a detailed examination of the
evidence. In any case, the FIR cannot be quashed merely on the
ground that a particular penal provision may ultimately not be
attracted, when the allegations otherwise prima facie disclose
cognizable offences requiring investigation.
25. The principles governing the exercise of inherent powers for
quashing criminal proceedings at the stage of investigation are no
longer res integra.
26. 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 summarised the governing principles in
paragraph 80 of the judgment and 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 the correctness of the allegations while exercising its
inherent jurisdiction. Ordinarily, the investigation should be
permitted to proceed unless the case falls within the well-
recognised exceptional categories. The relevant observations are
reproduced hereunder:-
“(ii) The Court should not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 08:35:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:46:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31943] (11 of 13) [CRLMP-2087/2025]
(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 would be
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, regard
being 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.
27. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, inter alia, held that the
Court should not thwart investigation into cognizable offences, and
the Court is principally concerned with whether the allegations
disclose commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to
adjudicate whether such allegations would ultimately result in
conviction.
28. Tested on the aforesaid principles, the material presently
available on record cannot be said to disclose a case where
continuation of investigation would amount to abuse of the
process of law. The allegations and the material collected during
investigation prima facie disclose cognizable offences. The
questions concerning the precise nature of individual transactions,
the role attributable to each accused, applicability of particular
penal provisions and sufficiency of the material to establish their
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 08:35:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:46:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31943] (12 of 13) [CRLMP-2087/2025]
ingredients are matters which cannot appropriately be subjected
to a detailed evidentiary examination while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 528 BNSS at the stage when investigation is in
progress.
29. It is equally well settled that the FIR is not expected to
contain an exhaustive account of the prosecution case and the
investigating agency must ordinarily be permitted to investigate
the allegations and collect evidence. This Court, while exercising
inherent jurisdiction, cannot conduct a mini-trial or undertake a
meticulous appreciation of the material with a view to determine
whether the allegations would ultimately result in conviction.
30. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
present FIR cannot, at this stage, be termed an impermissible
second FIR relating to the same transaction merely because the
material leading to its registration surfaced during investigation of
the earlier FIR. The material on record prima facie discloses
allegations of a substantially wider and distinct nature requiring
investigation.
31. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for
deciding the present petition for quashing of the FIR and shall not
be treated as a final finding regarding the applicability of any
particular penal provision, including Section 111 BNS. The
investigating agency and the Court concerned shall consider the
applicability of the relevant provisions in accordance with law and
on the basis of the material collected during investigation, without
being influenced by the observations made in this order.
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 08:35:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:46:26 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:31943] (13 of 13) [CRLMP-2087/2025]
32. Consequently, no case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction
under Section 528 BNSS for quashing FIR No.46/2025 is made
out.
33. Accordingly, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
34. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J)
229-231-/Hanuman Ram/365
(Uploaded on 28/07/2026 at 08:35:29 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/07/2026 at 08:46:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
