The Rajasthan High Court reaffirmed that an FIR disclosing a cognizable offence involving vehicle particulars cannot be quashed under writ jurisdiction at the pre-investigation stage based on disputed factual contentions. The Court upheld existing precedent, providing binding authority for subordinate courts dealing with quashing petitions in similar contexts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRLW/1361/2025 of KAILASH NAYAK S/O SITA RAM Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN |
| CNR | RJHC020891412025 |
| Date of Registration | 09-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL |
| Court | High Court Of Rajasthan |
| Bench | S.B. (Single Bench) |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Quashing of FIR under Article 226; Interpretation of cognizable offence under BNS, 2023) |
| Questions of Law | Whether factual disputes as to vehicle involvement can justify quashing of FIR at the threshold stage? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The contents of the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence with specific allegations against a vehicle, making it inappropriate for the High Court to intervene under Article 226 to quash the FIR at this stage. The factual assertion that the vehicle was not present at the scene cannot be examined at the FIR stage; such matters must be investigated by the police. The Court’s writ jurisdiction does not extend to evaluating factual disputes prior to investigation. Only if the allegations did not constitute a cognizable offence could the FIR be quashed at this threshold. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner asserted that his vehicle was wrongly implicated as not present at the scene, submitted representations to the police for a fair investigation, and sought quashing of FIR No. 0157/2025 registered for offences under Sections 281 & 106(1) BNS, 2023. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Rajasthan |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court reaffirmed that disputed questions of fact—such as whether the vehicle was present at the scene—cannot be a basis for quashing the FIR at the pre-investigation stage.
- Establishes clear precedent that only where the FIR fails to disclose any cognizable offence can writ jurisdiction for quashing be invoked.
- Defences based on representations to the police are irrelevant for quashing proceedings unless the investigation itself is impugned, not when the prayer is merely for quashing.
- Lawyers must advise clients that arguments seeking quashing based on factual disputes will not succeed at the FIR stage.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the submissions that the petitioner’s vehicle was not at the incident location and noted that this was a factual dispute.
- The contents of the FIR undisputedly disclosed the commission of cognizable offences (Sections 281 & 106(1) BNS, 2023) and specifically alleged involvement of a particular vehicle.
- The High Court held it was not possible or appropriate to decide such factual disputes at the threshold while exercising writ jurisdiction.
- Only non-disclosure of a cognizable offence in the FIR can justify quashing at this stage.
- The petition for quashing was therefore devoid of merit and dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The petitioner’s vehicle was wrongly implicated and was not present at the location of the incident.
- Representations had been submitted to police authorities asserting this fact, but a fair investigation was allegedly not being conducted.
- Sought quashing and setting aside of the FIR.
Respondent (State):
- FIR contents disclosed cognizable offences with specific vehicle involvement.
- No further arguments recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner was accused in FIR No. 0157/2025 registered at Police Station Nagar, District Deeg, for offences under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He contended that his vehicle (Pik-Up No. RJ05 GB 1903) was not present at the scene of the alleged incident and submitted representations to the police, alleging lack of fair investigation. The petition under Article 226 sought quashing of the FIR.
Statutory Analysis
- Sections 281 and 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, were referred to as forming the basis of cognizable offences alleged in the FIR.
- The Court implicitly affirmed that where the FIR discloses a cognizable offence on the face of it, the threshold for quashing is not met.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed existing law that factual disputes cannot be a ground for quashing an FIR at the threshold; only non-disclosure of a cognizable offence warrants quashing.