HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8799/2024 Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Devkaran Jain, Resident of Runthambhor Road, Vighayan Nagar, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor. 2. Ashok Kumar Bansal S/o Girraj Prasad, aged about 63 Years, Resident of Bal Mandir Colony, Mantown, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. ----Complainant/Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Rathore-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the FIR No. 87/2021 registered with Police Station, Mantown, Sawaimadhopur under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 of IPC. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the case of prosecution, the land in question was sold by the petitioner to the complainant by way of an agreement to sale and thereafter, the same land was sold by the petitioner to the subsequent purchaser. Counsel submits that the petitioner never executed any agreement of sale in favour of the complainant. Counsel submits that the petitioner has not singed any agreement, but without making any investigation in this regard and without collecting the original documents, a chargesheet has been submitted wherein (2 of 2) [CRLMP-8799/2024] the petitioner has falsely been booked, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that on the basis of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the chargesheet has already been submitted against the petitioner before the competent Court of law. Whether the petitioner has committed any offence or not, whether he has executed any agreement to sale or not, whether he has signed any documents or not, all these are the disputed questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C and the defence taken by the petitioner would be appreciated by the learned Trial Judge at the appropriate stage, hence interference of this Court is not warranted. 6. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/61