HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.7422/2024 Khem Chand Meena Son Of Shri Mangilal Meena, Resident Of A- 25, Behind Geejgarh House, Gali No. 3, Bais Godown, Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Geeta Devi Wife Of Shri Vishesh Kumar Dhakar, Resident Of Dhakad Potha, Hindaun City, District Karauli. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 21/01/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of FIR No.206/2024 registered at Police Station Kanota, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 447 & 379 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agreement to sell was executed between the petitioner and the complainant wherein the sale consideration amount was mentioned as Rs.9 Lakhs and Rs.2,21,000/- has alleged to have been given by the complainant to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that now the complainant has lodged an FIR against the petitioner changing her version and it has been mentioned in the FIR that against the property, she has paid a sum of Rs.12,08,325/- by cheque and received the possession. Learned counsel submits that the instant case is a pure case of civil nature, (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7422/2024] which has been given colour of criminal case to make pressure upon the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that there is no allegation against the petitioner for the forceful eviction from the complainant with regard to the property in question. Learned counsel submits that in case the complainant is aggrieved by any inaction or action of the petitioner, she is at liberty to approach the competent civil court for redressal of her grievance, hence under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record as well as the contents of FIR. 4. After going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that allegations made in the aforesaid FIR are the subject matter of investigation and the same cannot be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. This Court is not supposed to make a fishing and roving inquiry to embark upon the probe in order to ascertain the genuineness and reliability of the allegations levelled in the FIR. Certainly, this task is to be taken up by the Investigating Agency, therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation. 5. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file a representation before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. 6. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, he shall issue a notice to the petitioner as required under Section 35 of the (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7422/2024] BNSS and in case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that the arrest of the petitioner is required, 15 days advance notice be given to the petitioner. 7. In view of the above, this criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all other application(s), pending, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/118