[2025:RJ-JP:22513] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3345/2025 1. Bhagwana Ram Son Of Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 73 Years, Resident Of Village Piprali, Police Station Dadiya, Sikar, Rajasthan. 2. Mamraj Son Of Shri Ganpat Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Kulhariyon Ki Dhani, Devipura, Chirana, Jhunjhunu. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Surendra Kumar Son Of Shri Govind Ram, Resident Of Village Hodh, Police Station Khandela, District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3080/2025 1. Lal Chand S/o Shri Bholu Ram, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Village Chhoti Khudi, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan. 2. Smt. Gajraj Devi Wife Of Late Shri Dhanna Lal, Aged About 73 Years, Resident Of New Kotwali Road, Dhobiyon Ka Mohalla, Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Shri Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Govind Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Hodh, Police Station Khandela District Sikar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Reashm Bhargava Mr. Shashi Kant Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP with Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Mahendra Shandilya Mr. Sunil Kumar, SHO Kotwali Sikar with Ms. Krishana Chandrawat, SI, Mahila Thana, Kota [2025:RJ-JP:22513] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3345/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 28/05/2025 1. Present petitions are filed under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 for quashing of the FIR No.0123/2025 dated 28.03.2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Sikar for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the registration of the impugned FIR is an abuse of the process of law for the following reasons:- 2.1 That qua an agreement dated 14.08.2008, an FIR is registered at a belated stage i.e. on 28.03.2025. 2.2 That the civil proceedings are on going and even before the Lok Adalat, the parties have arrived at a settlement. Moreso, parallel running of the criminal proceedings in a civil matter is not permissible. 2.3 That the investigation is entirely manipulative nevertheless, the CCTV records and roznamcha if analysed can justify the claim of the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the FIR reflects that the agreement dated 14.08.2008 is non-existent and is an agreement to sale which is non-admissible piece of evidence. 4. The Investigating Officer has submitted that the stamp vendor was interrogated who had stated that the said stamp paper was never issued by his office. It is further submitted that statement of one Gajra Devi was also recorded, who had negated the contentions of the petitioner. However, even if it assumed that [2025:RJ-JP:22513] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3345/2025] the version of the petitioner is correct then also the appropriate legal recourse would be to file a suit for specific performance within the limitation period, i.e. by the year 2011. 5. Having heard the rival arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the records, this Court taking note of the disputed question of facts, and the fact that a strong number of criminal antecedents are registered qua the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the instant matter. 6. Withal, reliance can be placed upon the ratio encapsulated in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.: AIR 2021 SC 1918, whereby it is made unambiguous that the High Courts while exercising the jurisdiction under the provisions of Section 528 of BNSS/Section 482 of CrPC ought to be slow in meddling with the matters where investigating agency has carried a detailed investigation. Nevertheless, this Court cannot do a microscopic examination of factual disputes at this stage. 7. Howsoever, in the interest of justice and taking note of the fact that the counsel representing the petitioners has alleged malafides against the Investigating Officer, this Court directs the Superintendent of Police to pass appropriate instruction vis-a-vis change of Investigating Officer qua the FIR(Supra), and ensure that the investigation herein is conducted in a free, fair and impartial manner. 8. Any observation made herein above shall not cause prejudice to either of the sides. [2025:RJ-JP:22513] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3345/2025] 9. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J MAHIMA/380-381