Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Dinesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:35846]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3753/2026
CNR: RJHC010449752026 | URN: CRLMP / 6686U / 2026
1. Bhoma Ram S/o Shri Khuma Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Veer Dasar Udasar Dhorimanna District
Barmer
2. Suresh Kumar Godara S/o Sh. Dalla Ram, Aged About 23
Years, Resident Of Bheelo Ki Dhani Dhorimanna District
Barmer
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Seema Pathan, Ci Sog Jaipur Special Police Station Sog
Ats Sog Rajasthan
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2930/2026
CNR: RJHC010354342026 | URN: CRLMP / 5241U / 2026
Gopal Manju S/o Durga Ram, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of
Kuka Bhinmal District Jalore
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor
2. Seema Pathan, The Then Ci Jaipur Special Police Station
Sog Ats And Sog Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2931/2026
CNR: RJHC010354322026 | URN: CRLMP / 5244U / 2026
Om Prakash S/o Tulsa Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of
Sonari Chouhtan District Barmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor
2. Seema Pathan, The Then Ci Jaipur Special Police Station
Sog Ats And Sog Rajasthan
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 08:31:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35846] (2 of 11) [CRLMP-3753/2026]
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3119/2026
CNR: RJHC010361752026 | URN: CRLMP / 5591U / 2026
Sunil Kumar S/o Mohan Lal Bishnoi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Village Amli, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Sanchore, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Pp
2. Seema Pathan, The Then C.i. Jaipur, Special Police
Station, Sog, Ats And Sog, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3297/2026
CNR: RJHC010389202026 | URN: CRLMP / 5919U / 2026
1. Abhishek S/o Chautha Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village Sonari Tehsil Sedwa Dist Barmer,raj.
2. Ramjivan S/o Jagram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village
Rohila Paschim Tehsil Sedwa Dist Barmer
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. The Additional Director, Genral Of Police Ats And Sog
Rajasthan
3. Sho, P/s Specail Police Station Sog Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3298/2026
CNR: RJHC010393202026 | URN: CRLMP / 5921U / 2026
Dinesh Kumar S/o Heera Lal, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of
Sediya Raniwara District Jalore At Present In Posted Teacher
(Level 1) Karwada District Jalore
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Seema Pathan, Circle Inspector R/o Sog Jaipur Police
Station Sog Ats Sog Jaipur Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3302/2026
CNR: RJHC010398412026 | URN: CRLMP / 5926U / 2026
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 08:31:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35846] (3 of 11) [CRLMP-3753/2026]
Parsaram S/o Shri Kishnaram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Rohila
Purva Dhorimanna District Barmer
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3303/2026
CNR: RJHC010398342026 | URN: CRLMP / 5927U / 2026
1. Ramesh Kumar Vishnoi S/o Bhagvana Ram Vishnoi, Aged
About 1 Years, R/o Ranasar Khurd Gudamalani District
Barmer
2. Ramesh Kumar S/o Gangaram Bishnoi, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Barudi Sindhaswa Chouhan Gudamalani
District Barmer
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Seema Pathan, Ci Sog Jaipur Special Ps Sog Ats And Sog
Raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3365/2026
CNR: RJHC010405362026 | URN: CRLMP / 6033U / 2026
Rajuram S/o Rugnath Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bande Ke
Pas, Vishnu Nagar, Luni, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3456/2026
CNR: RJHC010413832026 | URN: CRLMP / 6200U / 2026
1. Omprakash S/o Hariram Saran, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of Sarano Ki Dhaani, Malwara, Districtjalore Raj.
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Hariram, Aged About 37 Years, Resident
Of Malwada, Parawa, District Jaloreraj.
----Petitioners
Versus
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 08:31:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35846] (4 of 11) [CRLMP-3753/2026]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Seema Pathan, Resident Of Ci Sog Jaipur, Special Police
Station -Sog,sog Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ashok Kumar Upadhyay
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit,PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
30/07/2026
1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of the
BNSS has been filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of FIR
No.19/2026, registered at Special Police Station SOG, ATS & SOG,
for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 120-B IPC
and Sections 3,7 and 10 of the Rajasthan Public Examination
(Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means) Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that most of the
petitioners are Government employees. It is submitted that,
pursuant to a subsequent decision taken by the State
Government, the earlier recruitments were ordered to be
scrutinized. During the course of such scrutiny/investigation into
the recruitment process, the present accused were allegedly found
to be involved in certain manipulations, whereupon the impugned
FIR came to be registered.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are
being proceeded against without there being sufficient material on
record. The allegation against the petitioners is essentially that the
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 08:31:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35846] (5 of 11) [CRLMP-3753/2026]
photographs and signatures appearing on the application
forms/attendance sheets and other records do not match, thereby
giving rise to an allegation that some other persons had appeared
in the examination on their behalf and that the petitioners were
subsequently selected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the
matter is being unnecessarily prolonged and that the investigation
is not progressing expeditiously.
5. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that unless and until the specimen signatures of the
petitioners are obtained and the report of the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) is received, no coercive action ought to be taken
against them and they cannot be treated as having committed the
alleged offences merely on the basis of the aforesaid
discrepancies.
6. The Investigating Officer, who is present before the Court,
submits that, in the present case, the record clearly reveals
material discrepancies/mismatches in the photographs and
signatures appearing on the application forms and attendance
sheets of the petitioner pertaining to the REET Level-I and Level-II
examinations held in the year 2022. It is further submitted that
the investigation is underway, which includes obtaining specimen
signatures and sending the same for forensic examination,
wherever required. It is also submitted that further action shall be
taken upon collection and examination of the relevant material.
7. It is also stated that notices have already been issued to the
candidates requiring them to join the investigation.
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 08:31:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35846] (6 of 11) [CRLMP-3753/2026]
8. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report,
which states that the FIR came to be registered only after
discrepancies were noticed in the attendance sheets, application
forms and the records available with the concerned Department,
giving rise to a prima facie suspicion that dummy candidates had
appeared in place of the petitioners. It is further stated that a
communication has already been addressed to the RSSB seeking
the relevant records. The said records have not yet been received
and, upon receipt thereof, further action shall be taken in
accordance with law.
9. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the
factual/investigation report submitted by the learned Public
Prosecutor.
10. The matter pertains to the REET Level-I and Level-II
examinations held in the year 2022, pursuant to which the
petitioners were selected. From the material presently available, it
appears that the investigating agency is proceeding with the
investigation by procuring the relevant records, examining the
discrepancies therein, and thereafter proposing to obtain specimen
signatures and seek forensic opinion, wherever considered
necessary. In view thereof, the apprehension expressed by the
petitioners that the investigating agency is proceeding against
them without procuring or examining the relevant records does
not, at this stage, appear to be borne out from the material
available on record.
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 08:31:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35846] (7 of 11) [CRLMP-3753/2026]
11. This Court finds that a preliminary inquiry with regard to the
concerned candidates had already been conducted by the
Department and it was only thereafter that the FIR came to be
registered. The allegations contained in the FIR, read with the
material referred to in the factual report, prima facie disclose
commission of cognizable offences. The discrepancies allegedly
noticed in the attendance sheets, application forms and other
available departmental records constitute material requiring
investigation. Whether such discrepancies ultimately establish that
dummy candidates had appeared on behalf of the petitioners,
andthe precise role, if any, attributable to each of the petitioners,
are matters which can be determined only upon completion of the
investigation. At this stage, this Court cannot undertake a detailed
examination of the evidentiary value or sufficiency of such
material.
12. 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 summarized the governing principles in
paragraph 80 of the judgment. It was 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 upon the correctness of the
allegations while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS, as applicable). Ordinarily, the
investigation should be permitted to proceed unless the case falls
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 08:31:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35846] (8 of 11) [CRLMP-3753/2026]
within the well-recognized exceptional categories. The relevant
observations are reproduced hereunder: –
“(ii) The Court should not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
(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
wouldbe 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,
regardbeing 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.”
13. In the present case, the allegations regarding mismatch of
photographs/signatures and discrepancies in the attendance
sheets, application forms and departmental records cannot, at this
preliminary stage, be said to be wholly irrelevant or incapable of
forming the basis of an investigation. The contention of the
petitioners that no case can be made out unless an FSL report is
first obtained essentially relates to the sufficiency and evidentiary
value of the material collected during investigation, which cannot
appropriately be adjudicated at this stage in proceedings under
Section 528 BNSS.
14. Thus, when the FIR and the material collected thus far prima
facie disclose cognizable offences and the investigation is still in
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 08:31:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35846] (9 of 11) [CRLMP-3753/2026]
progress, this Court does not find the present cases falling within
any of the exceptional categories warranting quashing of the FIR
at the threshold. Interference with the investigation at this stage
would amount to entering into an assessment of the evidence
before the investigating agency has been afforded an opportunity
to complete the investigation.
15. At the same time, most of the petitioners are Government
employees and the investigation pertains to recruitment
examinations conducted considerably earlier. The Investigating
Officer himself has stated before the Court that further action is
being taken after procurement and examination of the relevant
records and that the concerned candidates are being called upon
to join the investigation. The interests of justice would, therefore,
be adequately served by permitting the investigation to proceed
expeditiously while requiring the petitioners to cooperate with the
same.
16. Accordingly, while declining to quash the impugned FIR, the
present criminal misc. petitions are disposed of with the following
directions:-
(i) Before taking any coercive steps against any of the petitioners,
the Investigating Officer shall serve upon the concerned petitioner
a notice granting not less than thirty (30) days’ time to appear
before the Investigating Officer and join the investigation.
(ii) A copy of the notice issued to a petitioners, who’re in
government service shall also be forwarded through the
Department/office in which such petitioners are presently serving.
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 08:31:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35846] (10 of 11) [CRLMP-3753/2026]
(iii) The petitioners shall be at liberty to submit representations
raising their respective contentions alongwith any supporting
documents/material. Any such representation and material shall
be duly considered by the Investigating Officer in the course of
investigation.
(iv)For the aforesaid notice period of 30 days, there shall be a stay
on the arrest of the petitioners, however, thereafter the
Investigating Agency is free to proceed in accordance with law.
(v) Considering the period for which the matter has remained
under investigation and the fact that the petitioners are serving
employees whose careers may be affected by prolonged
uncertainty, the investigating agency is expected to proceed with
and conclude the investigation as expeditiously as reasonably
possible, in accordance with law.
(vi) The concerned Department/RPSC/RSSB shall promptly furnish
to the SOG the records requisitioned by it and shall ensure that no
avoidable delay is caused in supplying the records necessary for
completion of the investigation.
17. It is clarified that the observations made herein-above are
confined to the adjudication of the prayer for quashing of the FIR
at the present stage and shall not be construed as an expression
of opinion on the guilt or innocence of any of the petitioners. The
Investigating Officer shall independently evaluate the material
collected during investigation and proceed strictly in accordance
with law.
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 08:31:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:35846] (11 of 11) [CRLMP-3753/2026]
18. In view of the aforesaid, no ground for quashing of the
impugned FIR is made out. The criminal misc. petitions stand
disposed of in the above terms.
19. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
45-54 /Divya Tak
(Uploaded on 05/08/2026 at 02:45:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/08/2026 at 08:31:01 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
