[2025:RJ-JP:28354] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2654/2025 Kishan Lal Yadav Son Of Shri Sohan Lal Yadav, Resident Of Village Mau, Tahsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Deepshika Sharma Wife Of Sonu Sharma, Resident Of Ward No. 23, Shree Ram Nagar, Morija Road, Chomu, Jaipur (West), Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. M.S Shekhawat, PP Mr. Anshuman Saxena, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 28/07/2025 1. Accused-petitioner has filed this misc. petition for quashing and setting aside the FIR No.253/2025, registered at Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur (West) for the offence under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature as the same pertains to possession of the property. It is submitted that due to ulterior motive and malafidely intention, the present FIR is lodged against the petitioner nevertheless, the investigating agency without considering the nature of dispute, proceeded in the impugned FIR. It is also submitted that the petitioner has duly executed transactions as per the agreement. [2025:RJ-JP:28354] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2654/2025] 3. Learned counsel has placed reliance on Mohammad Wajid and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2023) AIR (SC) 3784 and Rikhab Birani & Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. : 2025 Cr.L.R. (SC) 688. 4. Relying upon the same, it is submitted that in a civil matter, interference should not be made by the Criminal Court under Section 528 jurisdiction. It is next submitted that the criminal antecedents are never to be entertained under Section 528 of BNSS. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has drawn attention to this Court the similar kinds of dispute ever since 2006 till date are pending with name of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender. The list of criminal antecedents of the petitioner is reproduced here as under:- dz- la- eqdnek uEcj /kkjk iqfyl Fkkuk urhtk iqfyl 01- 416@06 fnukad 15-10-06 406 Hkknl iqfyl Fkkuk cx: t;iqj xzkeh.k pktZ'khV uEcj 289 fnukad 12- 12-2006 02- 112@13 fnukad 08-02-13 468] 471] 474] 418]419] 420] 465] 467] 120ch Hkknl iqfyl Fkkuk pkSew t;iqj if'pe pktZ'khV uEcj 449 fnukad 03- 09-2013 03- 24@2008 420] 467] 468] 411] 120ch Hkknl iqfyl Fkkuk nwnw t;iqj xzkeh.k pktZ'khV uEcj 211 fnukad 11- 06-2009 04- 253@2025 fnukad 12-04- 2025 318¼4½] 316¼2½] 338] 336¼3½] 340¼2½] 61¼2½ ch,u,l iqfyl Fkkuk pkSew t;iqj if'pe iSfUMax vuqla/kku 05- 431@2025] fnukad 07- 07-2025 318¼4½] 316¼2½ ch,u,l iqfyl Fkkuk pkSewa t;iqj if'pe iSfUMax vuqla/kku 6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that there is distinction between civil matter and a criminal matter. Reliance in this regard placed upon Punit Beriwal vs. the State of NCT Delhi and Ors.: Criminal Appeal 1834/2025. [2025:RJ-JP:28354] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2654/2025] 7. Relying upon the same, it is submitted that there is a very thin line between a civil matter and criminal matter and when the intention to manipulate a document with forgery and fraud is made out, and there is no bonafide sale as per the facts, the criminal proceedings parallel to civil are to be considered. 8. Considering the strong criminal antecedents and from a bare perusal of the FIR, wherein allegations of committing forgery and fraud of creating fake documents are leveled; upon placing reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Punit Beriwal vs. the State of NCT Delhi and Ors.: Criminal Appeal 1834/2025, Rumi Dhar Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.: 2009 (6) SCC 364, R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab: AIR 1960 SC 866, State of Haryana and Ors. Bhajan Lal and Ors. :1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 686, M. Krishnan Vs. Vijay Singh and Anr.:(2001) 8 SCC 645, Joseph Salvaraj A. Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.:(2011) 7 SCC 59 and Anand Bhandari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.:(2013) 2 SCC 801 that this Court in disputed facts is not liable to conduct a mini-trial, and hence is not inclined to entertain the present petition. 9. The present petition is accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /21