ORDER : Ashok Kumar Jain, J. 1. These two criminal miscellaneous petitions under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyayik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, (hereinafter referred to as ‘ BNSS ’), were filed by the petitioners for quashing FIR No. 35/2025 registered at Police Station, Railway Colony, Kota City on 27.01.2025 and FIR No. 104/2025 registered at P.S. Gumanpura District, Kota City on 12.02.2025. Since these matters pertain to common parties, therefore, they are tagged together and, after order dated 15.09.2025 by Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in SLP (Criminal) Diary No. 43573/2025 and connected matters, are specifically assigned to this Bench. 2. During pendency of the petition, one of the petitioner(s), Shekhar Mewara, in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2669/2025, has withdrawn himself, filed to quash FIR No. 104/2025 registered at Police Station, Gumanpura, District, Kota City, and now only Kailash Ram, who is also named as an accused in the said FIR, is contesting the present miscellaneous petition. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record report dated 08.12.2025 filed by the Additional S.P, District Bundi, and submitted that:- (i) In FIR No. 104/2025 under Sections 232(1), 308(6), 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 61(2)(a) of BNS , 2023 at P.S. Gumanpura District, Kota City, the matter was investigated initially by P.S. Gumanpura, but later by the Additional SP, CID, (CB), Rajasthan, Jaipur, and after investigation it was found that there was mistake of fact, therefore, proposed closure of the investigation and drawn an FR No. 182/2025 on 24.11.2025, and the same is filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 6, Kota City on 06.12.2025. (ii) In FIR No. 35/2025 under Sections 308 (2), 352(2), 352 of BNS 2023 registered at P.S. Railway Colony, Kota City, initially the investigation was conducted by Police Station Railway Colony, but later the same was transferred to the Additional SP, CID, (CB), Rajasthan, Jaipur. After investigation, it was found that there was a mistake of fact and proposed a closure report. On basis of closure report FR No. 81/2025 dated 24.11.2025 is drawn and filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kota City on 06.12.2025. 4. The aforementioned facts clearly indicate that during pendency of these petitions, the criminal cases were investigated by the police and, after concluding investigation, closure reports were filed, meaning thereby there is no threat to the petitioner(s) for any coercive action by the police. 4. The aforementioned facts clearly indicate that during pendency of these petitions, the criminal cases were investigated by the police and, after concluding investigation, closure reports were filed, meaning thereby there is no threat to the petitioner(s) for any coercive action by the police. In such circumstances, we are considering these miscellaneous petitions for quashing of both the FIRs. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner, while placing reliance upon judgment in case of — R.K. Kapur Vs. The State of Punjab 1960 AIR 862 , State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, The State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 1144 of 2016, Dineshbhai Chandubhau Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5155 of 2017, Dr. Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2018, Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2018, Miss XYZ Vs. State of Gujrat and Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 1619 of 2019 , The State of Telangana Vs. Sri Managipet @ Mangipet Sarveshwar Reddy , Criminal Appeal No. 1662/2019, Ravuri Krihna Murthy Vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 330 of 2021, Sandeep Kaithan, Resolution Profesional for Narional Plywood Industries Limited Vs. JSVM Plywood Industries Ltd. And Anr. Criminal Appeal No. 447/2021, Kaptan Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 787/2021 and Santosh Bakshi Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 1251/2014 submitted that the complainant in both the cases have filed frivolous and vexatious criminal cases against the petitioner, with object to harass and falsely implicate the petitioner in criminal cases. He further submitted that, in order to prevent abuse of process of law, it is necessary that, despite proposal to submit closure report, the FIRs may be quashed. He further placed reliance upon the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments and submitted that the power and authority to quash an FIR under Section 528 of BNSS , (corresponding Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,) is provided with the object to prevent misuse of criminal case, just to settle the score. 6. He further placed reliance upon the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments and submitted that the power and authority to quash an FIR under Section 528 of BNSS , (corresponding Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,) is provided with the object to prevent misuse of criminal case, just to settle the score. 6. Learned Counsel for petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No. 915/2025 has also submitted that complainant Pankaj Gujjar is a well-known criminal and there are ‘n’ number of criminal cases relating to serious charges were registered against him. He further referred to the news captions and submitted that even a criminal case relating to rape has also been registered against the complainant. He further referred the process adopted by the investigating agency and submitted that instead of recommending FR on falsity, recommended on mistake of fact. He also submitted that the facts narrated in the FIR do not constitute any offence, therefore, the FIRs are liable to be quashed. 7. Learned Counsel, while referring to the character of the complainant in FIR No. 104/2025, has submitted that as a counterblast to other criminal cases, the instant report is registered, at the instigation of other persons. He further submitted that the matter has not been investigated by the police in a correct manner rather, a closure report has been filed only on the ground that there was a mistake of fact. He further submitted that the allegations made by the complainant is required to be investigated scientifically, as complainant is having a criminal background, and he made false charges. 8. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor on the ground that if any complainant files a report disclosing a cognizable offence, then it is the duty of the police to register a case and, after registration of the case, the same requires investigation. He further submitted that after investigation, the police has found that there was some mistake of fact and, on the basis of findings recorded after the investigation, the police has proposed the closure report, and the same is already submitted to the trial court. He further submitted that after investigation, the police has found that there was some mistake of fact and, on the basis of findings recorded after the investigation, the police has proposed the closure report, and the same is already submitted to the trial court. He also submitted that when the police has closed the case and the FR is in the domain of the trial court, then it is for the trial court to take cognizance, and there is no scope to invoke the power under Section 528 of BNSS to quash FIR. 9. Learned counsel appearing for complainant(s) in both the matters also opposed the present petitions and submitted that this Hon’ble Court cannot travel beyond the principle of law as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court required to be considered at this stage. He further submitted that after filing of the closure report, it is necessary for the court to give notice and an opportunity to the complainant, and if the complainant files a protest petition and the trial court takes cognizance, then only a criminal case will be registered against the present petitioner, but not otherwise. He further submitted that these miscellaneous petitions have rendered infructuous, as the counsel for petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the report was registered on false and fabricated facts. He also submitted that a cross case can be registered even if the same is a counterblast, but it is not a ground to quash any FIR. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed before the Court, and also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. These petitions are filed under Section 528 of BNSS to quash FIR No. 104/2025 registered at Police Station Gumanpura and FIR No. 0035/2025 registered at Police Station Railway Colony, Kota City. It is also a fact that in both the matters the police has closed the investigation and proposed a closure report by submitting FR to the concerned criminal Court. Now, there is no apprehension for the petitioner that the police may take any action against him. 12. It is also a fact that in both the matters the police has closed the investigation and proposed a closure report by submitting FR to the concerned criminal Court. Now, there is no apprehension for the petitioner that the police may take any action against him. 12. The judgments as referred by learned counsel for petitioner clearly indicate that the power under Section 528 of BNSS , (corresponding Section 482 of Cr.P.C.), has to be exercised sparingly within the well-accepted parameters, only when it is established that no offence is disclosed in the report, or the report is filed with malice, or it is an abuse of the criminal process, etc. The Court has to examine whether both the FIRs are registered for an offence even if no underlying criminal offence. 13. In case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab (supra) , while considering the provision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (inherent powers of the Court), has held that the power should be used sparingly when no legal evidence exists. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. 13. In case of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab (supra) , while considering the provision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (inherent powers of the Court), has held that the power should be used sparingly when no legal evidence exists. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle to quash FIR as under:- (a) 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; (b) 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 investi- gation 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; (c) 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; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) 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; (f) 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; (g) 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. 14. 14. Aforementioned principles clearly indicate that where the allegations made in the FIR 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 petitioner, then power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised either to prevent abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court has also observed that in any frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case, over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS , need not restrict itself only to the stage of the case, but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case, as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. 16. The provision under Section 528 of BNSS , (corresponding Section 482 of Cr.P.C.), empowers the High Court not only to quash FIRs and curb harassment, but also to direct fair investigation; however, the jurisdiction has to be exercised cautiously and delicately, balancing the scales between the rights of the accused and the demand of justice. 17. Considering the aforesaid principles, when we consider the arguments as advanced by learned counsel for petitioner in both the matters, it is apparent on record that the police has closed the case and there is no chance of harassment during investigation by the police. The closure report is now within the domain of a criminal court exercising jurisdiction under the relevant chapter of BNSS . The option before the criminal court is either to reject the closure report and proceed to take cognizance or to re-investigate the matter. In case the trial court considers the closure report, it has to issue notice to the complainant as per the judgment in the case of Bhagwat Singh Bhati v. Commissioner of Police AIR 1985 SC 1285. 18. The complainant has an option to file a protest petition and specifically request the court to take cognizance on the basis of material collected by the police or submit additional evidence. 18. The complainant has an option to file a protest petition and specifically request the court to take cognizance on the basis of material collected by the police or submit additional evidence. The trial court has an option either to reject the protest petition and close the case by accepting the final report or to take cognizance and issue process after recording additional evidence, if any. 19. In the present case, the counsel for the petitioner has also raised the issue of criminal background of the complainant and also the ground of counterblast and report filed by Shekhar Mewara. The material on record clearly indicate that the original complainant in one of the case, Shekhar Mewara, who was also a petitioner in one of the case for quashing the FIR, has withdrawn himself from the proceedings and now he is no more an actor in the field. 20. The counsel for the petitioner has referred details of eight cases registered against Pankaj Gurjar, who is a complainant in one of the criminal cases. He also submitted some news articles to indicate character of the complainant. The law does not restrict a person with a criminal background from registering an FIR. Similarly, a court cannot presume that no offence can be committed against a history-sheeter or a person with a criminal background. If a person with criminal background registers an FIR, then the same is required to be investigated in accordance with law. If the facts narrated in the report constitutes a cognizable offence, then the police is bound to register the FIR even if it is filed by a history-sheeter or a person with a criminal background. The power of the police is to register and investigate; therefore, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the complainant has a criminal background is of no relevance while considering the quashing petition under Section 528 of BNSS . 21. Now, comes another question as to when an accused can demand fair investigation at this stage or can he comment upon the method of investigation as conducted by the police. We have taken note of the report submitted by the Learned AAG-cum- Public Prosecutor, whereby the Court has been informed that in both the matters a closure report has been filed before the trial court. We have taken note of the report submitted by the Learned AAG-cum- Public Prosecutor, whereby the Court has been informed that in both the matters a closure report has been filed before the trial court. Any person whether the complainant or the accused has a right to demand for fair investigation, as it is essential to the process of justice that a criminal case be investigated in a fair and unbiased manner. Once the investigation is closed and nothing was found against the accused (petitioner), still can he demand any fair investigation. This is a question required to be examined in light of the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioner. 22. If we take the argument as a serious one then the Court has to exercise suo motu power to re-investigate the case but none of the parties have demanded re-investigation. Once the FR is proposed and submitted to the Trial Court then further process is prescribed under the BNSS and it is necessary for this Court to restrict within scope under Section 528 of . The issue cannot be unnecessarily directed by giving any colour, therefore, I am of the view that whatever be the investigation same does not require any comment or interference at this stage and there is no need to even examine the process and methodology of investigation adopted by the Investigation Agency particularly when we are considering the petition for quashing of FIR and not for fair investigation. 23. When we consider FIR No. 35/2025 registered at Police Station Railway Colony on 27.01.2025 on written complaint of Pankaj Gurjar then a specific allegation is made against Kailash Vishnoi about threatening, use of abusive language and criminal intimidation. On basis of contents of FIR, police has registered a case under Section 308 (2) of BNS . Section 308 of provides for extortion whereas Sub-section(2) of Section 308 provides for punishment. Herein this case, a specific allegation is made against Kailash Vishnoi, detailing the incident as well as a demand of Rs.10 lacs. The allegations of intimidation can only be ascertained during investigation but as regards to content of First Information Report is concerned same must fall within the parameters discussed hereinabove for the purpose of quashing the FIR. 24. Herein this case, a specific allegation is made against Kailash Vishnoi, detailing the incident as well as a demand of Rs.10 lacs. The allegations of intimidation can only be ascertained during investigation but as regards to content of First Information Report is concerned same must fall within the parameters discussed hereinabove for the purpose of quashing the FIR. 24. FIR No. 104/2025 was registered on 15.02.2025 at the instance of the complainant, Dinesh Murjani, against Ram Singh, Shekhar Mewara, Kailash Vishnoi, and others and several incidents have been mentioned therein and on the basis of which the police registered the FIR under sections 332(1), 308(6), 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) and 61(2)(a) of . Again, a detailed narration of incidents is mentioned, wherein specific acts of individuals were narrated. The only issue before this Court is whether the report conforms to the parameters or not as mentioned hereinabove. 25. If we consider the facts as mentioned in both the FIRs, considering the truthfulness on face value, it cannot be said that they do not constitute any offence rather on this parameter alone, the FIRs cannot be quashed. When we consider that the allegation in each of FIR then they disclosed the specific acts of the individuals against whom the complaint has been made. Thus, it cannot be said that no prima facie offence is disclosed. 26. The allegations contained in both FIRs requires investigation, and after investigation, the police found that due to a mistake of fact, the report had been registered and accordingly a closure reports were filed. However, the reasons assigned by the counsel for petitioner are not sufficient to conclude that the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 27. Having considered the facts mentioned in both the FIRs on the basis of parameters as laid down in the judgments as referred hereinabove, no case is made out for quashing the FIR No. 35/2025 and 104/2025, therefore, these misc. petitions are misconceived and liable to be dismissed. 28. In view of discussions made herein-above, S.B. Criminal Petition No. 915/2025 filed for quashing FIR No. 0035/2025 registered at Police Station, Railway Colony, Kota City and S.B. Criminal Petition No. 2669/2025 as FIR No. 104/2025 registered at P.S. Gumanpura District, Kota City are hereby dismissed. 29. No order as to costs.