[2025:RJ-JP:24863] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2475/2023 Archana Gupta @ Bharti D/o Late Shri Gopal Lal Rawat, R/o House No. 114/12, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor. …..Respondent 2. Kailash Chand Choudhary S/o Chhitar Mal, R/o 94/05, Vijay Path, Madhyam Marg, Mansarovar, P.S. Shipra Path, Jaipur. ----Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devanshu Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Rathore,PP Mr. Nishant Sharma ) Mr. Raj Kumar Garhwal)for the complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA JUDGMENT RESERVED ON :: 03.07.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :: 09.07.2025 1. Petitioner has filed the instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS for challenging the FIR No. 590/2018, registered at Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur City (South) for committing offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant-respondent No.2 lodged an FIR against the petitioner as well as two other persons Charan Singh and Rajesh Kumar Koolwal alleging therein that the accused have been indulged in property dealing business. In January, 2014, they represented before the petitioner with respect to one land Kanota, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur and after showing [2025:RJ-JP:24863] (2 of 7) [CRLMP-2475/2023] the land along with part construction raised thereon, other two co- accused got one agreement to sale executed between petitioner and complainant for selling land bearing Khasra No.174 measuring 6 Bighas and 1 Biswa for which the complainant made payment of Rs.51,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty one lacs) to the petitioner and it was a condition of the agreement that soon after opening of mutation of the aforesaid land in favour of the petitioner, sale deed shall be executed after receiving the remain sale consideration. Complainant further alleged in the FIR that for a long time, the sale deed was not executed, than on enquiry, complainant could learn that the aforesaid land is not in Khatedari of petitioner and in fact litigation is going on in respect of aforesaid land. Still, under the circumstances where title of the petitioner was not clear, she had entered into agreement to sale with the complainant and thus, her intention to cheat the complainant was existing right from the beginning and thereby, she has maliciously grabbed Rs.51 lacs from the complainant, which is a punishable offence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that bare perusal of the contents of FIR would reveal that the dispute has arisen on account of non-performance on the part of the petitioner in respect of terms and conditions of agreement to sale dated 29.01.2014, therefore, the dispute is of civil nature involving no criminal element. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has no intention to cheat the complainant and merely on account of the fact that her extended family has initiated litigation with regard to Khatedari and mutation entries [2025:RJ-JP:24863] (3 of 7) [CRLMP-2475/2023] which is pending before the Board of Revenue, sale deed could not be executed. Hence, there is no mens-rea involved in the matter. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that earlier after investigation, the police authorities submitted the negative Final Report by showing the dispute to be a civil nature, yet on protest petition filed by the complainant, investigation was again directed to be initiated. It was also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier even compromise has entered into between the complainant and the petitioner, yet only on account of inability on the part of the petitioner to carry out the terms of compromise, Police authorities are harassing the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that criminal prosecution cannot be used as a tool for recovery of amount, which can otherwise be recovered only through civil suit. Hence, he prayed for quashing the aforesaid FIR. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalit Chaturvedi and ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No.13485/2023), decided on 06.02.2024 and Rikhab Birani and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (SLP (Crl.) No.8592/2024, decided on 16.04.2025. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the criminal misc. petition and submitted factual report prepared by the Investigating Officer of the aforesaid case. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit that fair reading of FIR itself would reveal that in order to cause undue loss [2025:RJ-JP:24863] (4 of 7) [CRLMP-2475/2023] to the complainant and to derive undue gain for herself, concealing the fact that the petitioner was not Khatedar of the land in question as well as suppressing the on going litigation in respect of land in question, maliciously showing the aforesaid land as free from all encumbrances, the petitioner had induced the complainant to give Rs.51 lacs in 2014 and despite repeated demand, same is not being refunded. The very fact that agreement to sale has been executed by the petitioner in respect of a land for which she has got no right whatsoever to sale, would in itself to show the criminal intention of the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted that instead of returning the money, the petitioner is indulged in further deceiving the complainant and in that process earlier in order to safe her skin from the rigor of criminal prosecution, one compromise was entered into by the petitioner mentioned therein that she would get the mutation of the aforesaid land opened and would get the sale deed executed in favour of the complainant up till 15.07.2019 and in case she fails to get the sale deed registered then the entire amount taken from the complainant shall be given back to her, failing which the complainant would be at liberty to prosecute the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant would submit thus for last so many years on one or another pretext, the petitioner has befooled the complainant by making false promises with criminal intention to grab his hard earned money. Hence, she is liable to be prosecuted under law. 10. I have examined the record and heard the rival contention made by both the parties. [2025:RJ-JP:24863] (5 of 7) [CRLMP-2475/2023] 11. It is a settled preposition of law that scope of interference in FIR or criminal investigation, while exercising inherent power under Section 528 of BNSS is very very limited. Such interference is called for only under the circumstances where from a bare perusal of contents of FIR, no cognizable offence is made out against the accused, or in the cases where the FIR is resultant of apparent and manifest malafides or the FIR is clearly not made out pursuant to any specific provisions of law. 12. In the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down following guidelines for the purpose of interfering in FIR, which reads thus:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. [2025:RJ-JP:24863] (6 of 7) [CRLMP-2475/2023] (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 13. In the case of R.P.Kapur Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1960 SC 866, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically [2025:RJ-JP:24863] (7 of 7) [CRLMP-2475/2023] held that FIR should be quashed sparingly and in exceptional matters where no offence whatsoever is made out from bare reading. 14. Without making any comments over the merits of the case, I am of the considered view that case of the petitioner does not call for any interference in FIR, as the contents of FIR would not fall within the four corners of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. The investigation is still going on, where the Investigation Officer after examining the documents of both the sides as well as other facts, can produce the result before the competent Court. Hence, no prejudice or miscarriage of justice is being caused to the petitioner, therefore, the instant criminal misc. petition is hereby dismissed, being devoid of any substance and merits. (ANAND SHARMA),J pcg/106