[2025:RJ-JP:26824] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3059/2025 Tarun Sharma Son Of Jagdish Narain Sharma, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of 222, Muktananad Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Near Police Chowki, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Lovlesh Sharma Son Of Ravi Kiran Sharma, Resident Of Heerapur, Police Station Kapren, Bundi, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Jain with Mr. Vaibhav Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP, Mr. Ankur Singh Tomar, Mr. Surjeet, SI, SHO, Mr. Nand Singh, ASI, PS Kapren HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 17/07/2025 1. The instant criminal misc. Petition preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 BNSS for quashing the FIR No.53/2025 registered at Police Station Kapren, District Bundi for the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC. 2. This Court vide order dated 22.05.2025 directed the concerned Station House Officer to remain present in the Court and to furnish an affidavit tendering a reasonable explanation as to why the FIR was registered regarding the alleged transactions at a belated stage. The concerned Officer was also directed to study the matter thoroughly and to apprise the Court of whether the present FIR was registered after considering the settled [2025:RJ-JP:26824] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-3059/2025] judicial precedents and taking note of the law provisions. 3. Mr. Surjeet, SHO and Mr. Nand Singh, Investigating Officer, are present in person before this Court. The SHO has submitted the reply and the affidavit as per the directions. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the facts narrated in the FIR, even if taken on its face value, unerringly point towards a commercial transaction carried out from a business dealing which does not fall within the ambit of any fraudulent or dishonest intention. It is contended that no such transaction ever occurred between the petitioner and the complainant. The complainant in the FIR stated that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs. 14,72,000/- and the petitioner and the other co-accused had promised to hand over the plot to the complainant in 2014. It is also contended that the petitioner never executed any agreement with the complainant. The complainant in the FIR also did not mention the date when the petitioner and the other co-accused jointly received the alleged amount. The petitioner is neither the owner nor ever in possession of the referred plot. It is further contended that the facts of the FIR also show that the FIR was wholly made to recover the amount of the suspected transaction of Rs. 14,72,000/- that took place in the year 2014. It is vehemently argued that the police did not inquire into the matter following the principles enunciated in Lalit Chaturvedi & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another in Criminal Appeal No.13485/2023 and lodged an FIR in the year 2025 about the transactions that occurred in 2014. The lodging of the FIR against the petitioner with an inordinate and unexplained delay is a blatant abuse of the process of law. It is [2025:RJ-JP:26824] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-3059/2025] also contended that, prima facie, the allegation levelled in the FIR does not disclose any criminal act committed by the petitioner. Therefore, the present criminal proceedings against the petitioner concerning the impugned FIR may be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel, Mr. Ankur Singh Tomar, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2, vehemently argued that the petitioner, along with the other co-accused, had obtained an amount of Rs. 14,72,000/- in the year 2014, in the presence of two witnesses and also promised to allot a plot to the complainant. The petitioner and other co-accused promised the complainant to hand over the documents about a plot in Tirupati Vihar, Village Golyavas, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. However, the petitioner and the other co-accused neither gave possession of the plot nor returned the complaint's money. The said plot was later sold to some other persons. It is also contended that the transaction between the complainant and the petitioner, which was about an amount of Rs . 14,72,000/-, is corroborated by two witnesses. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that no case has been made against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant has also placed on record the original undated, unsigned and unnotarized agreement, a Will without any signatures, blank Power of Attorney, without any signatures of the executants, site plan of plot No.91 Tirupati Vihar, Village Golyavas, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur, without any signatures of the authorities who issued the site plan bearing a round stamp of Kirti Nagar cooperative housing society limited, Sodala, Jaipur, a receipt issued in the name of Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Narayan Sharma, plot No.91, scheme Tirupati Vihar, Village Golyavas, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur plot [2025:RJ-JP:26824] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-3059/2025] area 138.88 square metre, issued in the name of Kirti Nagar cooperative housing society limited, Sodala, Jaipur, receipt No. 1398 dated 26.05.1997, of Rs.48,718/-, Allotement letter issued by Kirti Nagar cooperative housing society limited, Sodala, Jaipur regarding plot No.91 in the name of Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Narayan Sharma, Resident of A-37, Bahubali Nagar, Muhana Road, Mansarovar, Jaipur. 6. Heard and perused the material available on record. 7. The fact narrated in the FIR shows that the alleged transaction between the petitioner, co-accused, and the complainant occurred in 2014. No document is available to substantiate that any such transaction was ever made between the petitioner and the complainant. The Investigating Officer has admitted that the complainant did not submit any document referring to allotment of Plot No.91, Scheme-Tirupati Vihar, Village Golyavas, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that no written document shows that the petitioner and the other co-accused have obtained Rs. 14,72,000/- in 2014 instead of allotment of Plot No.91 in favour of the complainant. The original documents placed on record by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 clearly show that no agreement was ever executed between the petitioner and the complainant in 2014. The sale agreement, placed on record, is unsigned. Similarly, the Vasiyatnama and Power of Attorney are placed on record, which are also unsigned and blank. These documents cannot give any right to any parties to claim ownership, title, or possession of the disputed land bearing No.91 [2025:RJ-JP:26824] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-3059/2025] scheme Tirupati Vihar, Village Golyavas, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur. The concerned SHO did not make any endeavour to verify the facts mentioned in the FIR and registered the FIR, disregarding the law laid down in the matter of Lalit Chaturvedi (Supra), whereby it was held that initiation of criminal process for oblique purposes is bad in law and amounts to abuse of process of law. There was no material before the SHO, who registered the FIR regarding any agreement between the petitioner and the complainant. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has taken an amount of Rs. 14,72,000/- from the complainant with a promise to allot a plot, in that case too, the police are not an authority to recover money or act as a civil court to recover money. No element present before this Court shows that the petitioner has cheated or deceived the complainant. Upon bare reading of the FIR, there are no facts recorded which show the commission of an offence by the petitioner. The concerned SHO has also not submitted any reasonable explanation substantiating the documents regarding lodging the FIR. Therefore, considering the above facts, this Court believes that the FIR lodged against the petitioner is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law. 8. As a result of the above, this SB Criminal Misc. Petition for seeking quashing and setting aside FIR No.53/2025 registered at Police Station Kapren, District Bundi, is allowed. The FIR registered against the complainant and other co-accused is quashed and set aside. 9. The concerned SP is directed to take appropriate action against the erring SHO who registered the FIR, completely disregarding the law in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of [2025:RJ-JP:26824] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-3059/2025] Uttar Pradesh & Ors., [2013] 14 S.C.R. 713 and circulars issued by the concerned department. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/219