[2025:RJ-JP:40208] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3378/2023 1. Kesar Devi W/o. Late Kishorelal Ghosi, Aged About 65 Years, Resident of Ghosi Mohalla, Chawani, Beawar, District Ajmer (Raj.) 2. Sohan Lal S/o Late Kishorelal Ghosi, Aged About 38 Years, Resident of Plot No. 29, Near Shiv Mandir, Ajmer Road, Daya Nagar, Beawar Tehsil, District Ajmer 3. Sugan Chand S/o Late Kishorelal Ghosi, Aged About 40 Years, Resident of Plot No. 29, Near Shiv Mandir, Ajmer Road, Daya Nagar, Beawar Tehsil, District Ajmer 4. Ramesh Chand S/o Nathu Lal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident of Plot No. 744, Daya Nagar, Beawar Tehsil, District Ajmer ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor 2. Jaspal Singh S/o. Late Gurubachan Singh, Aged About 47 Years, Resident of Mahaveer Nagar, Beawar, Ajmer, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Rishabh Kumawat Mr. Anubhav Gupta for Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 03/10/2025 1. When the matter came up on board on 26.09.2025, no one had put in appearance on behalf of petitioners. 2. Today as well, no one has appeared on behalf of petitioners, hence, arguments of counsel for complainant and learned Public [2025:RJ-JP:40208] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3378/2023] Prosecutor have been heard and the petition is being disposed of on merits as per the material available on record. 3. Instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Now 528 of BNSS, 2023) has been filed by and on the behest of petitioners on 24.05.2023 for quashing of FIR No. 263/2022 registered at Police Station Beawar City, Ajmer for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B IPC. 3. From the perusal of FIR, it appears that father of respondent No.2 complainant averred to purchase the property in question through registered sale deed dated 23.07.1988 from one Sohan Lal, who later on again transferred the same property to petitioner No.1- Kesar Devi on 19.09.1995. It has been averred that petitioner No.1-Kesar Devi had knowledge of the sale deed in favour of complainant's father, yet in order to grab the property, she transferred the property in question, in favour of her son (petitioner No.2 herein) through gift deed dated 08.08.2019. Petitioners No.2 and 3, happens to be sons of petitioner No.1 Kesar Devi, hence, they were also impleaded in the FIR. Thus, averments of FIR on their face value, discloses commission of cognizable offences. 3. It appears that after investigation in the impugned FIR, police has found involvement of petitioners No.1 and 2 in the alleged offences and submitted charge-sheet against them. As far as petitioner No.3 and 4 are concerned, they were not found having any nexus with the alleged offences, hence, they were exonerated and no charge-sheet was filed against them. [2025:RJ-JP:40208] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3378/2023] 4. It appears that after submission of charge-sheet by the Police, charges for offences under Section 120B, 420 IPC have been framed against accused petitioners No.1 and 2 namely Kesar Devi and Sohan Lal vide order dated 17.01.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beawar City, Ajmer. The certified copy of the order dated 17.01.2024 has been placed on record. 5. This Court, having gone through the averments made in the FIR, prima facie, finds the present case to be a fit and proper case to quash the FIR. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahmood Ali Vs. State of UP [2023 (8) SCC 734], in the matter of quashing of FIR, after submission of charge-sheet, granted liberty to the accused petitioner to move an application for discharge under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that after completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet in the Court, appropriate remedy of accused in such case is to prefer discharge application before the trial Court, which would be considered in accordance with law. 7. In the case at hand, no interim order was passed in favour of petitioners, hence, the investigation in the impugned FIR has completed. No offence against petitioners No. 3 and 4 has been found established by the Police, hence, the prayer on their behalf to quash the impugned FIR has become infructuous. 8. As far as prayer of petitioners No.1 and 2 is concerned, they are at liberty to take all their legal and valid defence during course of trial. On merits as well as on account of progress in the [2025:RJ-JP:40208] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3378/2023] impugned FIR, this Court does not find any prima facie case in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2 to quash the impugned FIR. 9. As a result, instant petition is hereby dismissed qua petitioners No.1 and 2 and in respect of petitioners No.3 and 4, the petition is dismissed as rendered infructuous. 10. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J NITIN /179