HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1881/2015 Amit Kumar aged about 31 years, Son of Shri Raghuvir Singh, R/o 553, Kristian Nagar Bagu Vijay Nagar By pass Indira Colony Gazibad (U.P) 201009 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan through PP 2. Smt. Rekha Gupta W/o Shri Sudarshan Kumar Gupta, aged about 58 years, Resident of 522, Hanuman Nagar Extension, Sirsi Road, Jaipur. Proprietor Sudarshan Corporation Address 1-C Near Kank Vihar Swarnpuri, Meena Wala Sirsi Road, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Namo Narayan Meena for Mr. Harendra SingH Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP Mr. N.S.Dhakar-PP Mr. Ramit Pareek JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant petition, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR No. 105/2014, registered with Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (North) for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B IPC. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the business affairs of M/s. Electrozone Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Counsel submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the goods were given to the aforesaid company on the word of the petitioner and thereafter, money was not paid by the aforesaid company to the complainant for the (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1881/2015] aforesaid goods. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, no offence has been made out against the petitioner and the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that after thorough investigation in the matter, the role of the petitioner has been found to be proved. The petitioner is absconding since last more than 10 years, and charge-sheet under Section 299 IPC has been submitted against him before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No. 19, Jaipur on 17.10.2015. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was a Director in the aforesaid company and while hiding his identity as Director of the aforesaid company, he influenced the complainant to give certain goods/articles to the aforesaid company for which the consideration amount has not been paid to the complainant. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has made an active role in the commission of the aforesaid offence, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Perusal of the contents of FIR and the allegations levelled therein reveal the commission of a cognizable offence. This Court while exercising its inherent power contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot adjudicate the correctness of the allegations levelled in the FIR against the accused persons. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1881/2015] 7. In case, the petitioner has any defence in support of his contentions, he is at liberty to raise the same at the appropriate stage of the trial. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the present petition stands disposed. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 9. The factual report furnished by the concerned SHO Police Station, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (North) is ordered to be retained on record. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/14