Rajasthan High Court
CRLMP/3174/2019 of BALKISHAN SHARMA S/O SHRI RAM LAL SHARMA Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 5 May 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3174/2019 Balkishan Sharma S/o Shri Ram Lal Sharma, R/o Bada Takhta, Raghunathpuri, PS Kotwali Tonk, District Tonk. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through PP. ----Respondent 2. Smt. Kamod
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3174/2019
Balkishan Sharma S/o Shri Ram Lal Sharma, R/o Bada Takhta, Raghunathpuri, PS Kotwali Tonk, District Tonk.
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
1.
State of Rajasthan, through PP.
----Respondent
2.
Smt. Kamod W/o Late Shri Chandmal, R/o Polyada, PS
Dooni, District Tonk.
----Complainant/Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. R.S. Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Amit Kumar Punia, Public
Prosecutor
Mr. Avinash Dhanju for Mr. Praveen
Kumar Jain for complainant
Shri Hemraj, RPS, C.O., Deoli Tonk
present in person
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
05/05/2026
1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the accused- petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR No.130/2015 registered at Police Station Dooni, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 167, 467, 465 and 120-B IPC.
2. Heard.
3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant.
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-3174/2019]
4. The Court has also gone through the case diary placed before this Court by the Investigating Officer, namely, Hemraj, RPS, C.O., Deoli, District Tonk.
5. As per the contents of the FIR, the allegation against the accused-petitioner is that he being the Investigating Officer in an FIR No.185/2015 has submitted bail bonds of certain persons including the complainant with the forged signatures before the concerned Magistrate, which is said to have prejudiced the interest of the complainant party.
6. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that there was no criminal intention of the accused-petitioner in submitting the bail bonds of the complainant party. He further submits that when the accused-petitioner went to the place of residence of the complainant party, certain persons have signed the bail bonds showing themselves to be the persons of the complainant party in the present case whereas, they were accused in the FIR No.185/2015.
7. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that during investigation and after having the FSL as regards the signatures on the bail bonds, it has been found that the signatures of the complainant party were forged one.
8. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances and the allegation against the accused-petitioner and so also the FSL report that the signatures of the complainant party were found to be forged on the bail bonds submitted by the accused-petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case to quash the present FIR.
9. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petition is dismissed.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-3174/2019]
10. In view of the order passed in the main petition, the stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /48