HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 568/2015 Setu Garg w/o. Udit Vikram Singh, Age: 31 years, Indian Inhabitant Occupation: Household & Business, R/o. J-167, Gamma-2 Greater Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through Kotwali Police Station Jaipur. 2. Mr. Dilipkumar Lalwani S/o Late Shri. Gopaldas Lalwani Residing at Plot No 41, Kawar Nagar Brahmapuri, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 569/2015 Preyshi Verma, W/o Satyendra Verma Age-29 yrs, Occupation - Housewife Residing at 83 A/70, Juhi Khurd, Hamirpur Road, Kanpurnagar Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan Through Kotwali Police Station Jaipur. 2. Mr. Dilipkumar Lalwani S/o Late Shri. Gopaldas Lalwani Residing at Plot No 41, Kawar Nagar Brahmapuri, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S.Dharka-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 17/04/2026 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these petitions, hence the same are being decided by this common order. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-568/2015] 2. By way of filing these criminal misc. petitions, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR No.522/2014 registered with the Police Station Kotwali, District Jaipur (North) for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. 3. The interim order is operating in both these petitions and more than eleven years have been passed thereafter and every time, time has been sought to defer these matters from one day to another. 4. None present on behalf of the petitioners. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to look into the contents and grounds taken in both the petitions for challenging the validity of the impugned FIR. 6. As per the grounds taken in these petitions, the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have no connection with the aforesaid incident if any occurred and no specific role has been assigned to them and general vague allegations have been levelled against them which do not constitute any offence as specified in the impugned FIR. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor apprised this Court that during the course of investigation, prima facie case was found against the petitioners. Counsel further submits that the charge- sheet could not be submitted on account of operation of the interim order in favour of the petitioners since February, 2015. Hence, under these circumstances, appropriate orders be passed. 8. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-568/2015] 9. The allegations levelled in the FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence. The correctness of the allegations cannot be examined or adjudged by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer, who has thoroughly investigated the matter from all the four corners and found prima facie involvement of the petitioners in the alleged incident. The charge-sheet could not be submitted against the petitioners on account of interim order dated 06.02.2015 passed by this Court. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners are at liberty to take all the grounds and all available defences, which have been taken before this Court at the appropriate stage of the trial. 11. With the aforesaid observations, both criminal misc. petitions stand disposed of. The interim order dated 06.02.2015 passed by this Court stands vacated. 12. Stay applications as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/75-76