Judgment Intelligence
Petition DismissedSuraj Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2026:RJ-JP:34492
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 3402/2026
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 24 August 2026
- Bench
- Justice Ashok Kumar Jain
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 175(3), 528; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Sections 61(2)(a), 318(2), 329(3), 336(3), 338, 339, 340(2), 341(1), 342(2)
Final Outcome
Petition under Section 528 BNSS dismissed, with pending applications (para 18).
Key holdings
- The Bhajan Lal categories for quashing are illustrative, not exhaustive (paras 12-13).
- Quashing an FIR is an exception; the court does not inquire into the reliability of the allegations at that stage (para 14).
- Under Pradeep Kesarwani, the accused's material must be of sterling quality and unrefuted to justify quashing (para 15).
Brief Facts
The petitioner claimed land of Kamal Coach Works Pvt. Ltd. under an agreement to sell said to have been signed by a company director on 26.02.2026 for Rs 22.5 lakh, and sued for specific performance; the company sued for possession (paras 2, 9-10). On the company's complaint, FIR No. 198/2026 was registered at Police Station Niwai, Tonk for forgery, cheating and trespass (paras 1, 7). His anticipatory bail was refused on 07.08.2026 (para 8). He sought quashing, calling the dispute civil, relying on Ankul Singh (paras 2-3).
Court's Findings
The police report showed no communication between the director and the petitioner, prima facie involvement of the petitioner and another in forgery and encroachment, and that both were absconding (para 7). The Rs 10 lakh cheque was never realised and payment was not substantiated; the petitioner had himself reported the original documents lost (paras 9-11). Though both sides were in civil court, an agreement alleged to be forged and not admitted made the dispute more than civil (para 11). The Court set out the Bhajan Lal categories, noted from Ankul Singh that they are illustrative but balance abuse of process against scuttling cases on disputed facts, and applied Neeharika's principles that quashing is an exception and courts do not test the allegations' reliability (paras 12-14). Under Pradeep Kesarwani's four steps the petitioner's material was not of impeccable quality (paras 15-16). The owner had been dispossessed and the land fenced (para 17).
Legal Principle
The pendency of civil suits does not make a dispute purely civil where the document on which the accused claims title is not admitted and is prima facie found forged; an FIR disclosing such offences will not be quashed under Section 528 BNSS while investigation is under way (paras 11, 14, 16-17).
Precedents Relied Upon
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
Illustrative categories in which an FIR or criminal proceeding may be quashed to prevent abuse of process.
- Ankul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2025 INSC 1153 2025 INSC 1153
The Bhajan Lal categories are illustrative; they balance preventing abuse of process against scuttling criminal proceedings at the threshold on disputed questions of fact.
- Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 315
Quashing is an exception to be exercised sparingly; the court does not inquire into the reliability of the allegations and must let the police investigate a cognizable offence.
View all precedents (4)
- Pradeep Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. SLP (Criminal) No. 11642 of 2019 (decided 02.09.2025)
Four steps for quashing: the accused's material must be sound and indubitable, rule out the accusations, be unrefuted, and continuing the trial must be an abuse of process.
