HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7107/2025 1. Rajendra S/o Baksa Ram, aged about 50 Years, R/o Village Chanana, Tehsil Chirawa, District- Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 2. Bhawani Singh S/o Babu Singh, aged about 33 Years, R/o Village Warispura, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District - Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. 3. Ranver Singh S/o Girwar Singh, aged about 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Baragaon, Tehsil Gudha Gorji, District- Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Public Prosecutor. 2. Ravindra Kedia S/o Laduram Kedia, aged about 60 Years, R/o Village Chanana, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Present R/o House No. 94/20 Meera Marg, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh-PP Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP Mr. Buddhi Prakash Sharma Mr. Anil Vaishnav JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/11/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned FIR No.107/2025 registered with Police Station Sultana, District Jhunjhunu for the offences under Sections 329(3), 318(4), 338, 324(4) and 324(5) of IPC. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7107/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.1 is the registered owner of the subject land. Counsel submits that the erstwhile Ruler of the State issued a patta for the subject land in favour of the ancestor of petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner No.1 sold the subject land to the petitioner No.2 by way of an agreement dated 23.07.2025. Counsel submits that the complainant has no concern whatsoever with the subject land and he does not have any title over the same but inspite of the above, he lodged the impugned FIR with vague allegation that a forged notary was prepared for selling the subject land. Counsel submits that if at all, the allegations leveled in the FIR are taken at their face value, then no offence is made out. 3. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr., reported in AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 347. In view of the submission made herein- above, the impugned FIR be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that the allegation levelled in the impugned FIR reveals the commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the Police. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction contained under Section 528 of BNSS, cannot adjudge the correctness and genuineness of the allegation levelled in the FIR against the (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7107/2025] accused. Certainly this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer. 7. In the instant case, both the parties are claiming their right/title over the subject land and the same cannot be adjudicated by this Court. If at all, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are claiming themselves as owner of the subject land and if the complainant does not have a valid title over the same, they would be at liberty to submit appropriate representation along-with relevant documents in support of the same before the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. 8. If the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that any cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners and subsequent arrest of the petitioners is required, then he would issue 15 days advance notice to them under Section 35(3) of BNS. 9. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/50