By; Sanjeev Sirohi
Jaipur, Sept 25, KDC: The Rajasthan High Court’s Jaipur Bench has dismissed a plea seeking registration of a murder case against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Union Home Minister Amit Shah and former Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad in connection with the passing of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), 2019.
Justice Sudesh Bansal, while pronouncing judgment in Puran Chander Sen v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3255/2025; Neutral Citation No.: [2025:RJ-JP:39287]) on September 23, 2025, as per Kashmir Dot Com held that the allegations made by the petitioner were “arbitrary, vague and concocted” and imposed a cost of ₹50,000 on the advocate who had filed the petition. The order was uploaded on September 24 and downloaded on September 25.
The petitioner, Advocate Puran Chander Sen, had sought directions to register an FIR under Sections 302, 323, 341, 344 read with 120-B, 409, 153-A, 153-B, 218, 109, 193 and 195 of the IPC against the Prime Minister, Home Minister, former Law Minister and others, alleging that the CAA had led to killings, injuries and unrest across the country. He had first submitted an application to the SHO, Police Station Govindgarh (Alwar) in October 2020, followed by a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate at Laxmangarh, which was rejected for want of jurisdiction. His revision petition before the Sessions Court was also dismissed in February 2025.
Challenging these orders, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (formerly Section 482 Cr.P.C.), seeking directions to the State of Rajasthan to register a “zero FIR” in the matter.
The High Court, after examining the pleadings and hearing arguments from the Solicitor General of India, Additional Solicitor General and Advocate General, held that the application did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. The Court noted that the petitioner had failed to specify any incident, name of victims, or causal connection between the CAA and alleged violence, and concluded that the allegations were based on “misconception and creative thoughts of his biased mind.”
Justice Bansal observed that being an advocate, the petitioner was expected to act responsibly and not initiate frivolous litigation. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in O.P. Sharma v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana (2011) 6 SCC 86, the Court underscored that advocates carry additional responsibilities towards society and should not misuse the judicial process for “cheap popularity” or political motives.
The Court further remarked that “no litigant has a right to unlimited drought upon the Court’s time” and that frivolous petitions deserved to be dismissed at the threshold with exemplary costs.
Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with costs of ₹50,000, to be deposited in the Litigants Welfare Fund within four weeks. The respondents were also given liberty to initiate civil or criminal proceedings against the petitioner if so advised. (KDC)
