HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 92/2025 1. Gourav Meena S/o Rajendra Prasad Meena, Aged About 23 years 2. Rajendra Prasad Meena S/o Puniya Ram aged about 49 years, All R/o Bhanokhar, Police Station Benhtukal (Devi Dholagarh), Alwar ( Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Jhandu S/o Ranjita, Aged About 86 Years, R/o Bhanokhar, Police Station Benhtukal (Devi Dholagarh), Alwar ( Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwani Bhargav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/01/2025 1. The instant petition has been submitted by the petitioner under Section 528 BNSS for quashing of FIR No.247/2024 registered with Police Station Benhtukala (Devi Dholagarh), Alwar for the offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 465 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant sold the land in question to the petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 01.03.01.03.2023 and thereafter, a belated FIR has been registered by him against the petitioners on 19.11.2024. Counsel submits that it has been alleged in the FIR (2 of 3) [CRLMP-92/2025] that taking the benefit of old age of the complainant, the petitioners have got registered sale deed of his land in their names. Counsel submits that in case, the complainant his not received any sale consideration amount, he could have approached Civil Court, but instead of availing the civil remedy, the instant FIR with incorrect and vague allegations has been registered against them, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor and perused the contents of FIR. 5. After going through the contents of FIR, it appears that allegations levelled in the FIR disclose that the alleged offence is cognizable and the matter requires investigation. This Court while exercising the discretionary powers contained under Section 528 of BNSS is not supposed to make a roving/fishing inquiry and to embark upon a probe to ascertain the genuineness and reliability of the allegations mentioned in the FIR. Certainly, it would surely be a task to be undertaken by the Investigating Officer, therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation. 6. The petitioner may file a representation before the Investigating Officer. 7. The Investigating Officer is directed to consider the averments of the same and in case, he comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, he (3 of 3) [CRLMP-92/2025] shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/25