[2025:RJ-JP:25098] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2824/2025 1. Ashok Kumar Gautam Son Of Shri Hari Prasad Gautam, Resident Of 238, Near Hanuman Mandir, Kailashpuri, Kota Junction, Police Thana Railway Colony, Kota City. 2. Gaurav Gautam S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Gautam, Resident Of 238, Near Hanuman Mandir, Kailashpuri, Kota Junction, Police Thana Railway Colony, Kota City. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Mohit Sharma Son Of Shri Vinod Sharma, Resident Of Nehru Nagar, Rangpur Roadm Kota Junction. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Chandra Pachori For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. S. Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Ms. Amrita Dhuan, IPS, SP Kota City, through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 08/07/2025 The present petition is filed seeking directions for quashing of the FIR No. 68/2025 dated 21.02.2025 registered at Police Station Colony Kota City for offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 333(2) and 189(2) BNS. In compliance of the directions passed vide order dated 02.07.2025, Superintendent of Police has marked presence via VC and has submitted that strong criminal antecedents are registered against the petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that during investigation it is revealed that there are certain financial [2025:RJ-JP:25098] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-2824/2025] transactions, whereby, property which belonged to the complainant was sold and was taken in possession by the petitioner in the Year 2023. However, a portion of the said property was allotted to the complainant to reside. Further, it is submitted that due to physical altercation between the parties, complainant sustained injuries which were grievous in nature, wherein petitioner No. 2 was arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that the fact qua criminal antecedents of the petitioner is not disclosed in the petition, howsoever, in most of the matters, the petitioner No. 1 is exonerated. Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and Investing Officer, this Court has noted that the petitioner is already enlarged on bail. Taking note of the aforementioned, this Court is of the view that interference is warranted in matters where there is abuse of process of law, therefore no interference is called in the instant matter. Howsoever, the petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedy, in case charge-sheet is filed in the instant matter. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /144