Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 21231 (RAJ)

SMT. YASHODA MEENA WIFE OF SHRI SULTAN MEENA v. KALYANSAHAY SON OF SHRI ARJUNRAM

CRLMP/3938/2023 · 2025-08-05

Sudesh Bansal

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:30040] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3938/2023 Smt. Yashoda Meena Wife of Shri Sultan Meena, Resident Of Bharatdas Colony, Near Power House Navodaya School Road, Ward No. 4, Kasba Pavta Thana Pragpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus Kalyansahay Son of Shri Arjunram, Resident of Ajeetpura Kalan Post Kujota, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukul Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 05/08/2025 1. From perusal of the previous order-sheets, it appears that no one has put in appearance on behalf of petitioner-accused, hence, counsel for complainant has been heard on merits. 2. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, seeking to quash the Criminal Complaint No. 448/2019, filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotputli, District Kotputli. The fundamental ground for quashing the complaint is that the cheque of petitioner has been misused by the complainant. 3. This Court finds that the ground on which quashing of FIR has been prayed, does not fall within the scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the criminal proceedings at threshold. This can be [2025:RJ-JP:30040] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-3938/2023] a ground to raise plea of defence to contest the criminal proceedings. Otherwise also, counsel for complainant has pointed out that the proceedings of criminal complaint has been finalized and reached to the stage of final arguments, but final arguments are not being heard by the Judicial Magistrate, due to pendency of this petition. 4. In view of the fact that, proceedings have been concluded and reached at the stage of final arguments, counsel for petitioner does not want to press the instant criminal misc. petition. 5. Accordingly, the misc. petition is hereby dismissed as not press. 6. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 7. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Court to proceed further. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /276