1. This petition under Section 482 of CrPC/ 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by petitioner for quashing of FIR pertaining to Crime No. 396 of 2023 registered at Police Station Sarangpur, District Rajgarh for offence punishable under Sections 392, 394, 397, 302, 307, 460 and 412 of the IPC.

2. The exposition of facts, giving rise to present petition, is as under:

          A. The complainant Rajendra Singh Rajput reported to P.S. Sarangpur that in the intervening night of 12 and 13.07.2023, some unknown offenders committed robbery at his home. The unknown offenders assaulted his father - Bane Singh and mother Laadkunwar Bai, who were sleeping in the room at first floor. Gold and Silver jewellery, cash Rs. 10 lakhs and 02 licensee guns were stolen from his house. His mother Laadkunwar Bai and father were taken to Sarangpur. The Medical Officer declared Bane Singh dead. On such allegations, the P.S. Sarangpur registered FIR for offence punishable u/S 392, 394, 397, 302, 307 and 460 of IPC against unknown offenders. The Finger Print Expert informed the Superintendent of Police, Rajgarh on 26.03.2025 that the chance finger prints taken from the spot of incident have matched with finger prints of Brajesh. Accordingly, Brajesh was apprehended on 27.06.2025. The test identification parade could not be conducted during investigation for the reason that injured Laadkunwar Bai has lost her mental balance and she was not in a position to identify the accused. During further investigation, the co-accused Chintu was apprehended on 04.04.2025. He informed that he was associate of Brajesh and other co-accused. They had sold the gold and silver ornaments to petitioner/ accused Mahesh. Mahesh was apprehended on 4.4.2025. He informed that he has converted the gold and silver ornaments to new ornaments after melting them.

The silver brick of 300 grams was recovered and seized in furtherance of information at the instance of applicant. The stolen ornaments could not be traced. The Final report was submitted after investigation against petitioner for offence punishable under Section 412 of IPC.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the facts and grounds mentioned in the petition contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this offence merely on the basis of statement of co- accused in police custody which is not admissible in law. The petitioner is jeweller by profession. Mere recovery of silver brick of 300 grams is not sufficient to implicate the petitioner in the alleged offence because he regularly deals with silver and gold as part of his profession. The alleged recovery at the instance of the petitioner is not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. The petitioner has made complaint on 2.4.2025 to higher police authorities apprehending his false implication. Thereafter, he was arrested on 4.4.2025. It is a case of false implication. The impugned FIR deserves to be quashed.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the petition and submitted that the main accused Brajesh and Chintu had sold the looted silver and gold articles to the petitioner. The petitioner melted them and manufactured new jewellery. Only 300 grams of silver metal could be recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The bill books seized during investigation show complicity of the petitioner. The petition is meritless.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal, reported in AIR 1992 SC 604 after an elaborate consideration of the matter and after referring to its various earlier decisions, has observed in para 108 as under:-

          ''108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

          (1) 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.

          (2) 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.

          (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

          (4) Where, the allegations in the F.I.R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

          (5) 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.

          (6) 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.

          (7) 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." (emphasis added)

7. The material on case diary reveals that Molten silver was recovered at the instance of applicant in furtherance of the information given by the Co accused. Thus, the information and the recovery would be relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. (Mehboob Ali v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 14 SCC 640 relied). As informed, the books of account (bill books) have been seized from the petitioner during investigation. Whether the seized silver brick was stolen in the robbery or it is property of the petitioner acquired in furtherance of his profession of jeweller, would be determined after evidence in the trial. The enquiry on complaint submitted by wife of petitioner to higher Police authorities remained inconclusive as the matter is under trial. The petitioner's defence of false implication need to be established, even on preponderance of probability, from the evidence on record. It cannot be inferred on the basis of complaint submitted to the Police authorities. At this juncture, it cannot be concluded that the chances of conviction are bleak and further prosecution of petitioner would be an abuse of process of law.

8. Considering aforestated facts and circumstances, no ground is made out for invoking the inherent jurisdiction 482 Cr.P.C./528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash impugned FIR and subsequent proceedings against the petitioner. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.