Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25977 (RAJ)

RAMKARAN GURJAR S/O LATE SHRI JIVAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMP/4668/2025 · 2025-09-08

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:35855] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4668/2025 1. Ramkaran Gurjar S/o Late Shri Jivan, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Vaishnav Mohalla, Gram- Chachiyawas, Tehsil And District Ajmer (Rajasthan) 2. Mahendra Gurjar S/o Shri Hardev Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Vaishnav Mohalla, Gram- Chachiyawas, Tehsil And District Ajmer (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Sho, Police Station Christianganj, Ajmer (Rajasthan). 2. Rajeev Sharma, S/o Prabhakar Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, R/o E - 164, Shastri Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manan Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 08/09/2025 1. Accused-petitioners have filed this criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to quash FIR No.133/2025 registered at Police Station Christianganj, District Ajmer for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) and 61(2) of BNS. 2. The allegation in the impugned FIR against the petitioners is that they agreed to enter into an agreement to sale of land in question with the complainant-respondent No.2 and obtained Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lacs) as sale consideration for such land and later on, it was revealed that the land in question belongs to Ajmer Development Authority (ADA), which is going to launch its Scheme. The amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten lacs), received by [2025:RJ-JP:35855] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-4668/2025] petitioners, was not refunded despite demand by the complainant and on that issue the impugned FIR has been lodged. 3. Prima facie perusal of the contents of FIR discloses occurrence of cognizable offence by the accused-petitioners and on the face value, no case is made out to quash the impugned FIR. 4. Counsel for the accused-petitioners, after arguing the petition and in order to avail the remedy of pre-arrest bail and other legal remedies, does not want to press the present petition. 5. Permission is granted. 6. In view of the above, the instant criminal misc. petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. 7. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/9