HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 91/2025 1. Pawan Sharma S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 12, Raj Vihar Colony, Gandhi Path Road, Panchayawala, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Narendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of 12, Raj Vihar Colony, Gandhi Path Road, Panchayawala, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Sunil Kumar Chaturvedi S/o Shri Babu Lal, Resident Of Plot No. 37, Jagdish Sarovar, Behind The Khatipura Railway Station Near By Shiv Temple, Khatipura, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Bairwa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/01/2025 1. The instant petition has been preferred against the FIR No.576/2024 registered with the Police Station Ramnagariya, Jaipur City (East) for the offences under Sections 337, 338, 336(3), 316(2) and 61(2)(A) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are property brokers and they have not committed any offence whatsoever. Counsel submits that in fact a sum of Rs.38,000/- was given by the complainant to (2 of 3) [CRLMP-91/2025] the petitioners for which a slip was issued by them and the same has been fabricated by the complainant by increasing the amount of Rs.38,000/- to Rs.55 Lakh. Counsel submits that the petitioners have provided two plots to the brothers of the complainant, but without any basis, the petitioners have been falsely booked in the instant case, hence, 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 the FIR. 5. After going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that the 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 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 (3 of 3) [CRLMP-91/2025] conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, he 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/24