VIPIN SHARMA vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

[2026:RJ-JD:14783]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR

(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:19:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:12 AM)

(2 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:14783] [CRLMP-522/2026]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 16/02/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 16/02/2026
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:19:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:12 AM)

(3 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:14783] [CRLMP-522/2026]
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/04/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. The present batch of criminal miscellaneous petitions has
been instituted by the respective petitioners, namely Vivek Singh
Rajput, Vipin Sharma, Kanhaiya Lal Dangi, Dalchand Dangi and
Ashok Singh Laxman Singh, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of
this Court, seeking quashment of FIR No.0314/2025 dated
01.10.2025 registered at Police Station Goverdhan Vilas, District
Udaipur, for offences under Sections 316(4) and 61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Since all the petitions arose out of
the same FIR and involve common questions of fact and law, they
are being adjudicated and disposed of by this common order.
2. The facts of the each petition are as under:-
(i) Misc. Petition No.522/2026
The petitioner Vivek Singh Rajput has assailed the impugned FIR
on the ground that although it pertains to alleged
misappropriation of 250 bags of milk powder (weighing
approximately 6,250 kilograms) from the warehouse of Udaipur
Dairy Union on 23.07.2025, no specific role, overt act, or
allegation has been attributed to him. It is contended that the FIR
is conspicuously silent regarding his involvement and, therefore,
continuation of investigation against him amounts to abuse of the
process of law.
(ii) Misc. Petition No.9115/2025
The petitioner, Vipin Sharma, submits that the FIR has been
registered in a routine and mechanical manner, without any
substantive material connecting him to the alleged offence. It is
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:19:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:12 AM)

(4 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:14783] [CRLMP-522/2026]
contended that even on a bare reading, the FIR does not disclose
commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioner, rendering
the investigation unwarranted and unjustified.
At the outset, learned Public Prosecutor informed the Court
that offence against this petitioner is not found proved and thus
he is not going to be booked as an accused in the matter. In this
view of the matter, this petition is disposed of while directing that
no coercive measure shall be taken against him without prior
informing about the change of investigation aspect.
(iii) Misc. Petition No.8811/2025
The petitioner Kanhaiya Lal Dangi has similarly challenged the FIR,
contending that no criminal act is attributable to him from the
allegations contained therein. It is asserted that the registration of
FIR and continuation of investigation is nothing but an abuse of
the process of law, in absence of any cogent material establishing
his complicity.
(iv) Misc. Petition No.8847/2025
The petitioner Dalchand Dangi, who is stated to be the Chairman
of Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited, has been
specifically named in the complaint dated 16.09.2025 submitted
before the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur. The complaint
alleges that in connivance with other accused persons, including
Vipin Sharma and Kanhaiya Lal Dangi, he facilitated the
misappropriation of 250 bags of milk powder, which were allegedly
diverted and sold to a party in Ahmedabad, thereby causing a
financial loss of approximately ₹25 lakhs. It is further alleged that
official machinery was misused, including issuance of office orders
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:19:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:12 AM)

(5 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:14783] [CRLMP-522/2026]
and deployment of transport vehicles, and that despite knowledge
of the alleged diversion, no corrective action was taken by the
management, thereby indicating active complicity.
(v) Misc. Petition No.1231/2026
The petitioner Ashok Singh Laxman Singh, transporter by
profession, has contended that he was merely engaged in
transportation of goods in the ordinary course of business and had
no knowledge, participation, or nexus with the alleged
misappropriation. It is submitted that he neither had dominion
over the goods nor derived any unlawful gain, and thus, no
ingredients of offences under Sections 316(4) or 61(2) of BNS are
attracted against him.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length and has carefully perused the material available on record,
including the FIR and the complaint forming its basis.
4. At the outset, it is apposite to delineate the settled legal
parameters governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction for
quashing of an FIR.
4.1. This Court feels that the Courts are meant to impart justice
and for that purpose alone it is established. From the very day of
its establishment, it acquires and possesses all the powers needed
to impart justice and as such for the purpose of dispensation of
justice, it can exercise the inherent powers vested in it. The
express provision under Section 528 BNSS( corresponding to
section 482 CrPC) only recognizes and preserves the powers which
are inherent and imbibed in the Courts for the purpose of
achieving the ends of justice as well as for the purpose of
preventing or thwarting the abuse of process of law. Whether the
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:19:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:12 AM)

(6 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:14783] [CRLMP-522/2026]
High Court in its inherent power which is expressly recognized
under Section 528 BNSS can quash a criminal complaint or an FIR
has very elaborately and wisely been enunciated by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. Vs.
Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors. and the same has elaborately been
discussed in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others reported in (2021)19
SCC 401. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has expounded elaborately
the canvass of the issue relating to quashing of the FIR. For the
ready reference, the relevant part of Neeharika Infrastructure
(supra) is reproduced herein below: -
10. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from
the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja
Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law
emerge:
i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the
relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into
cognizable offences;
ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the
cognizable offences;
iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or
offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information
report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;
iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection, in the ‘rarest of rare cases’. (The
rarest of rare cases standard in its application for
quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused
with the norm which has been formulated in the context
of the death penalty, as explained previously by this
Court);
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:19:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:12 AM)

(7 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:14783] [CRLMP-522/2026]
v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which
is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the
allegations made in the FIR/complaint;
vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the
initial stage;
vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception
and a rarity
than an ordinary rule;
viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the
jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the
State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The
inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to
secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the
process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.
ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are
complementary, not overlapping;
x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference
would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the
judicial process should not interfere at the stage of
investigation of offences;
xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not
confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act
according to its whims or caprice;
xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the
offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by
the police is in progress, the court should not go into the
merits of the allegations in the FIR. 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 or that it amounts to abuse of process of
law. During or after investigation, if the investigating
officer finds that there is no substance in the application
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:19:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:12 AM)

(8 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:14783] [CRLMP-522/2026]
made by the complainant, the investigating officer may
file an appropriate report/summary before the learned
Magistrate which may be considered by the learned
Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;
xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide,
but conferment of wide power requires the court to be
cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on
the court;
xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it 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 (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction
to quash the FIR/complaint; and
xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by
the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to
consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR
disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and
is not required to consider on merits whether the
allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and
the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the
FIR.
Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that the FIR and the underlying complaint
disclose serious allegations of misappropriation, criminal breach of
trust, and conspiracy involving diversion of substantial quantities
of milk powder and consequent financial loss.
4.2. In the case at hand, the allegations are not vague or illusory
in their entirety; rather, they delineate a structured sequence of
events involving issuance of official orders, movement of goods
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:19:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:12 AM)

(9 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:14783] [CRLMP-522/2026]
through identified transport channels, and diversion of the goods
to an unauthorized destination.
4.3. The very nature and gravity of the allegations necessitate a
thorough and comprehensive investigation to ascertain the precise
role of each individual, the extent of their involvement, and the
manner in which the alleged offence has been perpetrated. At this
stage, it would be apposite to observe that the material on record,
prima facie, indicates a well-orchestrated act of systematic
misappropriation and clandestine diversion of goods tantamount
to organized black-marketing conducted with calculated precision.
The magnitude and manner in which the milk powder, belonging to
a cooperative institution, has allegedly been siphoned off
unmistakably suggest that the act was not an isolated aberration
but a concerted endeavour to secure wrongful gain through
deceitful means at the cost of the cooperative society.
4.4. Such conduct, if ultimately established, strikes at the very
root of institutional integrity and the public trust reposed in
cooperative bodies. The offence alleged is not merely individual in
character but carries broader economic and societal ramifications.
4.5. In such circumstances, this Court is constrained to observe
that if allegations of this nature, entailing large-scale
misappropriation and deceitful enrichment, do not warrant a full-
fledged investigation, it would be difficult to conceive of any case
justifying invocation of the investigative machinery. To interdict or
stifle the investigation at this nascent stage would amount to
permitting serious economic impropriety to go unchecked.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:19:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:12 AM)

(10 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:14783] [CRLMP-522/2026]
4.6. The contention of certain petitioners that they have not been
specifically named or that their role is not clearly delineated
cannot, at this stage, constitute a valid ground for quashing of the
FIR. It is well-settled that investigation is precisely the stage at
which such roles are to be unearthed and clarified.
4.7. The expression “investigation” inherently postulates a
comprehensive and methodical process encompassing collection of
evidence, identification of perpetrators, and ascertainment of
culpability. Any premature judicial interdiction of such process
would tantamount to stultifying a lawful inquiry. Furthermore, the
material sought to be relied upon by the petitioner is itself subject
to judicial scrutiny and cannot be accepted at face value without
due evaluation vis-à-vis the material collected by the investigating
agency. Even assuming the existence of divergence or apparent
inconsistency between the two, it is well-settled that at this
incipient stage, the Court is not expected to undertake a
meticulous appreciation of evidence. Such an exercise squarely
falls within the province of the trial court at the appropriate stage.
In considered view, at the present juncture of judicial proceedings,
the Court ought to refrain from embarking upon a roving inquiry
or conducting a mini-trial prior to the commencement of the
actual trial.
4.8. By way of illustration, where a transporter pleads lack of
conscious knowledge, or a public functionary disclaims direct
complicity, such pleas constitute matters of defence, necessitating
evidentiary evaluation and adjudication on merits. These issues lie
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:19:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:13 AM)

(11 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:14783] [CRLMP-522/2026]
exclusively within the domain of trial and are beyond the
circumscribed scope of jurisdiction exercisable in proceedings
seeking quashing of criminal prosecution.
4.9. Having bestowed anxious consideration upon the
submissions advanced and upon a careful perusal of the material
available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
allegations, at this nascent stage, do disclose a prima facie case
necessitating a thorough investigation. It cannot, therefore, be
held that the impugned FIR falls within any of the well-recognized
exceptional categories warranting exercise of inherent jurisdiction
for its quashing, as delineated in the judicial precedents referred
to hereinabove.
4.10.Insofar as the plea of petitioner concerns with their plea of
innocence and that they should be given a chance to canvass
certain circumstances which, according to them, are indicative of
their innocence. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of
such submissions, and with a view to afford them an opportunity
to place their version before the investigating agency, it is deemed
appropriate to permit them to submit a comprehensive and
detailed representation before the Superintendent of Police,
Udaipur.
4.11.In order to facilitate such recourse and to ensure that they
are able to effectively present their case without any undue
apprehension, it is directed that they shall remain protected from
arrest for a period of thirty (30) days from today. Upon submission
of the said representation, the same shall be duly taken on record
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:19:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:13 AM)

(12 of 12)
[2026:RJ-JD:14783] [CRLMP-522/2026]
and be reflected in the case diary, whereafter the investigating
agency shall proceed to take an appropriate decision strictly in
accordance with law. It is, however, made clear that such decision
must be shall be arrived at independently, on the basis of material
collected during the course of investigation, and considering the
averments of the representation but without being influenced, in
any manner whatsoever, by any observations made in the present
order.
4.12.In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled legal
position, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for
quashing of the impugned FIR is made out. The allegations made
in the report evidently and conspicuously disclosing commission of
a cognizable offence and which in my view, warrant a full-fledged
investigation in accordance with law to ascertain the culpability of
the persons involved. Misc. Petition No.9115/2025 filed by
petitioner Vipin Sharma is disposed of as mentioned at clause (ii)
of para No.1 of this order.
5. Accordingly, all the criminal miscellaneous petitions, being
devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed. The stay petitions, along
with all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
185-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 03:19:36 PM)
(Downloaded on 01/05/2026 at 07:06:13 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)