[2025:RJ-JP:33303] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7138/2022 Mohammad Iqbal S/o Shri Idu Khan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Todi, Police Station Gudha Gaurji, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through the Public Prosecutor. 2. Mohammad Safi S/o Shri Idu Khan, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Todi, Police Station Gudha Gaurji, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Sanjay Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 22/08/2025 1. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, seeking to quash the FIR No. 341/2022 registered at Police Station Gudha, District Jhunjhunu for offence under Sections 166, 167, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. 2. From perusal of record, it appears that vide order dated 23.08.2022, the Coordinate Bench of this Court issued notices to respondent No.2-complainant and granted interim relief in favour of petitioner not to arrest him in the impugned FIR subject to condition that petitioner cooperates with the investigation. 3. A perusal of order-sheets dated 08.02.2023, 24.08.2023, 04.02.2025 and 21.08.2025 goes to show that no one has turned [2025:RJ-JP:33303] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7138/2022] up on behalf of petitioner to pursue the instant petition on merits, however, the Coordinate Benches adjourned the matter in the interest of justice. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor so also the counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-complainant, states that petitioner has misused the interim relief granted by this Court and neither has cooperated with the investigation nor appeared before the Investigating Officer despite summoning, hence, in that view, interim relief granted to petitioner be vacated or the petition itself be heard and decided finally on merits. 5. In such circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to consider and decide the petition itself on merits. 6. Heard learned Public Prosecutor as also counsel for respondent-complainant and perused the material available record. 7. It appears that in the impugned FIR, allegations against the petitioner is to prepare a forge patta dated 20.08.2019 of Gram Panchayat Gudha Gorji in respect of Government land. In the investigation, it has revealed that indeed the Government land is situated in Gram Panchayat Todi and the patta in question issued by the Gram Panchayat Gudha Gorji, has not been verified from the record of that Gram Panchayat. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the progress report of investigation dated 21.08.2025, pointing out that in the investigation, offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, have been established against the petitioner. It has further been pointed out that the Investigating Officer issued notices to [2025:RJ-JP:33303] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7138/2022] petitioner to appear for the investigation and submit original patta, but petitioner never turned up. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after reiterating the principles laid down in case of State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335], elaborately considered the scope and extent of the powers of High Court to quash the criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C in the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2021 SCC OnLine SC 315], wherein the Apex Court observed that the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. It was further observed that while examining the FIR/ complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of allegations made therein. 10. Taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, which prima facie, give rise to a cognizable nature of offence, as much as such offences have prima facie been found established against the petitioner in the investigation, the petitioner does not fall in any of the categories as expounded by the Apex Court in case of Choudhary Bhajan Lal (supra), hence, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out to quash the FIR in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. As a result, petition is devoid of substance and is hereby dismissed. 12. Consequentially, the interim order dated 23.08.2022 also stands vacated. [2025:RJ-JP:33303] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7138/2022] 13. All pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. 14. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Investigating Officer to proceed further in accordance with law. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /237