SATTAR KHAN SON OF DEEN MOHAMMAD v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMP/2844/2025 · 2025-07-18
Sameer Jain
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18003 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 18003 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:26944] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2844/2025
1. Sattar Khan Son Of Deen Mohammad, Resident Of Near Badi Mosque, Mungska, N.e.b. Alwar.
2. Elyas Khan Son Of Sardar Khan, Resident Of Near Badi Mosque, Nungska, N.e.b. Alwar.
3. Deen Mohammad Son Of Kaluaa, Resident Of Near Badi Mosque, Mungska, N.e.b. Alwar.
4. Munsi Khan Son Of Kaluaa, Resident Of Mungska, N.e.b., Alwar.
5. Mamali Khan Son Of Kaluaa, Resident Of Mungska, N.e.b., Alwar.
6. Saddam Khan Son Of Sardar Khan, Resident Of Mungska, N.e.b., Alwar.
7. Samedeen Khan Son Of Sardar Khan, Resident Of Near Badi Mosque, Mungska, N.e.b., Alwar.
8. Sarif Khan Son Of Sube Singh, Resident Of Ahmedpur, Malakheda, Alwar. ----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Manoj Kumar Son Of Parmal Singh Gurjar, R/o 200 Ft Road, Dayanand Nagar, Near Beghar Clinic, Hanuman Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Ajay Kumar ASI PS, NEB Alwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 18/07/2025 In compliance with the directions passed vide order dated 15.05.2025, Investigating Officer has marked presence and has
[2025:RJ-JP:26944] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-2844/2025] submitted that complainant is the purchaser of the property. It is further submitted that the necessary information including mortgage was not disclosed to the complainant, thereby committing fraud/ breach of trust, prompting filing of complaint against the petitioner. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has obtained NOC dated 25.04.2022 from the concerned Bank, which is duly marked as Annexure-6. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it apposite to extend the interim protection granted vide order dated 15.05.2025, for 15 days. Further, investigating officer is at liberty to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, if allegations leveled by the complainant qua concealment of material information are made out. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. A copy of factual report dated 17.07.2025 is taken on record.
(SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/28