HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4904/2015 Nitish Pal Gupta S/o Shri Chandra Pal Gupta, Vasu Enterprises & Valka Vasu Energy (P) Limited, 887 Devi Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. 2. Mohit Saxena S/o Shri Rakesh, Karta Fem Enterprises HUF, D- 4, Kusum Vihar Jagatpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 18/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a chal- lenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.688/2013 registered with the Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur (East) for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 & 471 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the al- legations levelled in the FIR, the instant case involves a dispute between the parties with regard to the statement of account, which is of civil nature, but by lodging the instant FIR, a colour of criminal case has been given. Learned counsel submits that arti- cles were delivered by the petitioner to the concerned firms. The complainant was simply appointed as CSA agent and the allega- tions of the complainant against the petitioner is that his due ben- (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4904/2015] efit/commission was not given to him. Learned counsel submits that after making thorough investigation in the matter, the final report “negative” was submitted in favour of the petitioner & the orders were passed by the concerned Magistrate to send the mat- ter for further investigation and now the Investigating Agency is bent upon to charge-sheet the petitioner in the instant civil dis- pute between the parties with regard to statement of accounts, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the due amount of the complainant was mis-appropriated by the peti- tioner by committing the offence of cheating. All these facts were examined by the Investigating Agency and a prima facie case has been found to be proved against the petitioner, hence, interfer- ence of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the allegations levelled against the petitioner re- veal commission of cognizable offence. The correctness of the alle- gations and defence of the accused cannot be examined by this Court at such initial stage while exercising inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 6. Looking to the fact that after thorough investigation, a prima facie case has been found to be proved against the petitioner by the Investigating Agency, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant criminal misc. petition granting liberty to the petitioner to take the grounds and all available defence, which (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4904/2015] have been taken before this Court at the appropriate stage of the trial before the Trial Court. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal misc. petition, stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 8. In case, the custodial investigation from the petitioner is not required, the Investigating Agency may submit the conclusion re- port before the concerned Court without his custodial investiga- tion. The necessary bail bonds and surety bonds be taken from the petitioner at the time of submission of the charge-sheet. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/33