HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6062/2016 Kailash Chand Umarwal S/o Kalyan Shay Umarwal, R/o House No.s.p6, D P Colony, Nahari Ka Naka, P.s. Shastri Nagar, Jaipur N, Present Address F 02, Viraat Classic Apartment, Bal Vihaar Colony, Jhotwara, Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms.Muskan Verma for Mr.Rajeev Surana For Respondent(s) : Ms.Vijay Laxmi Jangid for Mr.Suresh Kumar Mr.N.S. Dhakar, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned F.I.R. No.6/2016 registered at the Police Station Amer, District Jaipur North for the offence registered under Section 420 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no role in the alleged incident and he has not committed any offence whatsoever and he has simply been implicated as an accused because he is the husband of one Nidhi Umarwal, who organised a new year party at Rajasthali Resort. As per the allegations levelled by the complainant, certain passes were provided, after charging for the same. Counsel submits that the charge-sheet was submitted against the co-accused Mohit Singh (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6062/2016] and Nidhi Umarwal under Section 420, 406 & 120-B IPC before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Headquarter Amer, wherein both the accused persons have been acquitted by the concerned Court vide judgment dated 30.01.2026. Counsel submits that once the main co-accused persons have already been acquitted from the alleged offences, the impugned F.I.R. qua the petitioner is liable to be quashed on this count alone, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent as well as Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer raised by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the contents of the impugned F.I.R. reveals that neither the petitioner nor the co-accused persons were named in the said F.I.R., but after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted against the co-accused Mohit Singh and Nidhi Umarwal and they have already been acquitted by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Headquarter Amer. The correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner cannot be examined and adjudicated by this Court as to whether his involvement was there or not. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Agency to reveal the truth of allegations. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6062/2016] instant petition while granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation along-with a copy of the judgment dated 30.01.2026 passed by the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Headquarter Amer before the Investigating Officer, who will consider the same and submit the conclusion of investigation strictly in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /27