HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6127/2025 1. Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Bansidhar Jat, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Kanwarpura, Tehsil Amer, Police Station Chanwaji, District Jaipur, Rajasthan 2. Banshidhar Jat S/o Late Shri Seduram Jat, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Village Kanwarpura, Tehsil Amer, Police Station Chanwaji, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Jitesh Swami S/o Shri Subhash Chand Swami, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Kanwarpura, Tehsil Amer, Police Station Chanwaji, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Santosh Kumar Rathi S/o Gyarsi Lal, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Bobadi, Raisar, Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Indira Sharma for Mr. Mahendra Kumar Naharwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the FIR No.165/2025 registered with the Police Station Raisar, District Jaipur Rural for the offence under Section 309(4) of BNS, 2023. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a vehicle bearing No.RJ41GA4034 was purchased by the petitioner No.1 from the registered owner Ashok Kumar Choudhary, for which sale (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6127/2025] agreement was also executed. Counsel submits that the vehicle was on loan and the petitioner No.1 was paying installments and even form No.29 and 30 were also signed by the registered owner Ashok Kumar Choudhary. Counsel submits that the possession of the vehicle was handed over to the petitioner No.1 and he was plying the same, but behind the back of the petitioner No.1, the said Ashok Kumar Choudhary, further mortgaged the aforesaid vehicle to a finance company and the finance company has taken the vehicle. Counsel submits that when the petitioner went to take the vehicle back, the instant false and fabricated FIR with incorrect allegations has been lodged against the petitioners, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the contents of the FIR reveal commission of a cognizable offence, which requires investigation by the Investigating Agency, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not going to adjudg the genuineness and correctness of the allegations levelled in the FIR. Certainly, it is the job of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter. 5. The petitioners are at liberty to file a representation along with the relevant documents in support of their contentions before the Investigating Officer, who would consider the same in accordance with law. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6127/2025] 6. Even if, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that any cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, he would issue notice under Section 35 of the BNSS to the petitioner. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/18