HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.134/2025 Dilsukh Choudhary S/o Sh. Banwari Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Rulyani, District Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its P.P. 2. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shivlal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Plot No.683, 4 C Scheme, Macheda, Harmada, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Kumar Jangid, Adv. Mr. Satyendra Singh Tanwar, Adv. Mr. Rituraj Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Respondent No.2 : : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP Mr. Sharad Purohit, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 23/07/2025 1. The instant petition has been preferred under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the FIR No.680/2024, registered at Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC along with stay application. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not promised to sell any plot to the complainant. It is also argued that an amount of Rs.84,500/- was received in the account of petitioner through online payment, however, the petitioner did not execute any document in favour of complainant and never gave any papers of property to the complainant [2025:RJ-JP:27470] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-134/2025] showing himself as allottee of disputed Plot Nos.164 and 166 in the Krishna Cooperative Housing Society Limited Scheme Sector- 10 in Khatipura. It is also contended that the petitioner and the complainant are knowing each other from the past 10 years and there exists no documents on record showing petitioner’s ownership to the complainant. The FIR prima facie alleges the offences committed under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC, however, there is no document in existence which shows that the petitioner has forged the document and thereby showing himself as the owner of disputed Plot Nos.164 and 166. It is further contended that in pursuance to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Tesla Power India Private Limited Vs. State through Director General of Police Rajasthan, Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.2873/2025, the Office of Inspector General of Police, has issued letter dated 10.06.2025, wherein, it is mentioned that if during investigation or inquiry, it is disclosed that any transaction has been made between the parties of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- or above, than in such case, the concerned Investigating Officer shall inform in writing about the same to the Nodal Officer of the Income Tax Department. It is further alleged that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner in cash through the other co-accused, nothing is on the record to substinate the said fact. It is further argued that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 2963/2025 dated 14.07.2025, at Para-10 held that there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to [2025:RJ-JP:27470] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-134/2025] cheat the complainant right from inception. It was further held that the party in a case must seek appropriate civil remedy and cannot be permitted to take recourse of criminal proceedings to recover the amount, therefore, the petitioner may be protected and S.H.O. Police may be directed not to arrest the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Sharad Purohit, appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner promised to sell the disputed Plot Nos.164 and 166 located at Krishna Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Sector 10 in Khatipura to the complainant and also gave the photocopies of the said plots indicating himself to be the owner of the said plot. However, later on the complainant came to know about the fact that the said plots were never allotted to the petitioner, rather, their allotment was in the name of Dayachand and Sumit Jain. It is further contended that the petitioner after giving assurance that he would execute the registry in favour of the complainant received an amount of Rs.84,500/- through online payment and further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in cash. It is also argued that the intention of the petitioner from the very inception was of cheating the complainant and the petitioner has forged the documents representing himself to be the owner of the disputed Plot Nos.164 and 166. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report, the same is taken on record. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor that prima facie offence under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC is made out against the petitioner and the Investigating Officer after a thorough investigation reached to the conclusion [2025:RJ-JP:27470] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-134/2025] that the petitioner has committed the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. In the factual report, the Police has not stated about the existence of any document showing the petitioner as the owner of the disputed Plot Nos.164 and 166. Therefore, considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the facts narrated in the factual report and without expressing anything on the merits of the case, this Court deems it proper to direct the concerned S.H.O. not to arrest and take any coercive steps against the petitioner in connection with FIR No.680/2024, registered at Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur (West). 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 seeks time to file the detailed reply. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor is also directed to submit the factual report alongwith case diary on the next date of hearing. 9. List the matter after three weeks. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava/-32