Rajasthan High Court Quashes CBI FIR Registered Pursuant To Judicial Order Later Set Aside By Division Bench

The Rajasthan High Court has quashed an FIR against two men, observing that the very origin and basis of the criminal proceedings no longer existed, since the Single Judge's order directing investigation against them had already been set aside and the underlying writ petition itself stood dismissed.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held:

"The origin and genesis of the impugned FIR is no more in existence. The order dated 13.01.2010 directing the investigation in the alleged offence and registration of the FIR was quashed by the Division Bench vide order dated 10.11.2010, while remanding the matter back to the Single Bench and the main matter seeking registration of FIR against the petitioner has already been dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2026 for non-compliance of peremptory order."

The Court was dealing with two criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by Ranjeet Singh and former IAS officer Sanjay Dixit seeking quashing of FIR registered by the CBI under Sections 12(1) and 12(2) of the Passports Act, 1967, and Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC.

The controversy originated from a writ petition filed by one Prahlad Gurjar, who alleged that Ranjeet Singh had procured an Indian passport by suppressing material facts despite several criminal cases pending against him. Gurjar further alleged that Sanjay Dixit had issued a character certificate describing Ranjeet Singh as a person of good moral character and recommending issuance of a passport. On that basis, Gurjar sought directions to prosecute both men under the Passports Act.

By an order dated January 13, 2010, a Single Judge directed the CBI to investigate the allegations and register a case if an offence was disclosed. The order also clarified that the observations made therein were based solely on the pleadings before the Court.

However, Ranjeet Singh and Sanjay Dixit contended that they had not been impleaded as respondents in the writ petition and that the order had been passed without hearing them. Aggrieved, they approached the Division Bench through separate special appeals.

The Division Bench, by its order dated November 10, 2010, set aside the Single Judge's order and directed that the writ petition and the petitions under Section 482 CrPC be heard together after impleading the appellants as respondents. At the same time, it clarified that the FIR would not stand automatically quashed and that its fate would depend upon the outcome of the pending proceedings.

Thereafter, when the matter came up before the Single Bench in April 2025, the writ petitioner was directed to amend the cause title and implead Ranjeet Singh and Sanjay Dixit within two days, failing which the writ petition would stand dismissed automatically.

Despite the passage of nearly fifteen years since the Division Bench's order, the directions remained uncomplied with. Consequently, the matter was placed before the Registrar (Judicial), who dismissed the writ petition on January 19, 2026, for non-compliance with the peremptory order.

Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that the FIR could not survive once the order that formed its basis had been set aside and the writ petition itself had been dismissed.

Accepting the submission, the Court observed that the FIR had originated from the Single Judge's order dated January 13, 2010, which had already been quashed by the Division Bench. It further noted that even after the dismissal of the writ petition in January 2026, no restoration application had been filed by Gurjar.

The Court relied on the following legal maxims:

1. “sublatom fundamento cadit opus”, which states that if the underlying basis of a legal right, claim or judgment is invalidated, all subsequent actions arising from the same built upon it would automatically collapse.

2. “cessante ratione legis, cessat ipsa lex”, which states that if the underlying justification or purpose behind a law disappears, then the law itself becomes obsolete and unenforceable. 

It thus sett aside the FIR but granted liberty to the CBI to seek recall of the order and revival of the proceedings in the event that the original writ petition is restored to its file in future.

Case Title: Ranjeet v Central Bureau of Investigation, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4487/2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(Raj) 295

For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Madhav Mitra with Advocates Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, Veerendra Singh, Jaya Mitra, Ravi Bhojak, Manisha Meena, Anurag Sharma and Anoop Meena

For CBI: Special Public Prosecutor Jag Mohan Saxena with Advocates Chinmay Saxena and Anupam Senagar

Click here to read/downlaod the Order