Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rampal Soni vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:32139) on 22 July, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:32139]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4581/2025
Rampal Soni S/o Bhagwati Lal Soni, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Shalibhadra Complex, Samta Nagar, Bedla, Udaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ms Suman Banjara D/o Mr Prabhu Lal Banjara, Aged
About 20 Years, Resident Of House No 38, C-Block, Sector
14, Savina, Hiran Magri, Udaipur Rajasthan
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 301/2025
Mahin Jain S/o Mr. Anil Jain, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Sector
14, Savina, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ms. Suman Banjara D/o Mr. Prabhu Lal Banjara, R/o
House No. 38, C Block, Sector 14, Savina, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. Sharwan Kumar Bishnoi for
Mr. Deepak Menaria for Complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order 22/07/2025
1. These criminal misc. petitions under Section 528 BNSS (Section 428 Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR No.0456/2024 registered at Police Station Savina, District Udaipur for the offences under Sections 420, 384, 354, 354-D and 120-B of IPC.
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32139] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-4581/2025]
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material as made available to this Court as well as gone through the niceties of the matter.
3. A perusal of the FIR indicates that as per the victim, the co-accused Anurag Vashishth, with whom she was having old acquaintance, in the year 2023, forwarded her certain morphed obscene photographs and by threatening to viral the same, started extorting money from her. As per the FIR, the petitioners - and co-accused Anurag Vashishth connived with each other and extorted more than Rs.4-5 lacs from the victim. In order to arrange the money to pay the petitioners, the victim had to stole gold ornaments from her house.
4. The factual report dated 20.7.2024 received by learned Public Prosecutor from the office of SHO PS Savina, Udaipur indicates that during the course of investigation, the police has procured bank statements of accused persons which indicate that the petitioners have received different amount from the victim on various occasions. The co-accused Anurag Vashishth who has already been arrested by the investigating agency during interrogation, has disclosed that the petitioners had played an active role in commission of the alleged crime.
5. In the considered opinion of this Court, since the impugned FIR discloses the commission of the cognizable offences against the present petitioners and the police after making thorough investigation in the matter has found the alleged offences to be proved against the present petitioners, therefore, no case for quashing of the FIR is made out.
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32139] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-4581/2025]
6. In the considered opinion of this Court, while exercising powers under Section 528 BNSS this Court cannot minutely go into the correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioners. At this stage, this Court is neither expected to scan the entire material available on record nor record its findings on each of the charges levelled against the present petitioners.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal & Ors. reported in 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 has illustrated the situations wherein, 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 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 a police officer (Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:32139] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-4581/2025] 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;
(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."
8. In view of aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration the precedent law, this Court does not find any of the aforesaid conditions to be prima facie fulfilled in the present case and thus this Court is not inclined to exercise the powers vested in it under Section 528 of BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.) for quashing the impugned FIR qua the petitioners.
9. Accordingly, these criminal misc. petitions as well as stay applications stand dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 38-39 TarunGoyal/-
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:43:55 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)