[2025:RJ-JP:45239] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.251/2013 Satish Dhabi S/o late Sh. Ram Lal Dhabi, aged about 40 years, R/o A/2, Santosh Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through P.P. 2. Investigation Officer in the FIR No.310/2010 registered at P.S. Bagru, Jaipur (Rural), District, Jaipur. 3. Babu Lal Meena S/o Sh. Durga Lal Meena, aged about 60 years, R/o 26, Patel Colony, Sadar Patel Marg, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umashanker Pandey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 11/11/2025 1. By way of filing the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed FIR No.310/2010 dated 11.06.2010 registered at Police Station-Bagru, District-Jaipur (West) for offence under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 & 384 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier one FIR No.350/2009 was lodged by the petitioner against the complainant, and the impugned FIR is nothing but is retaliation of legal action taken by the petitioner earlier. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in business of property dealing, and on account of some disputes with the complainant, earlier FIR was also lodged by contractor of the petitioner against the complainant, in which cognizance has been taken. 3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the FIR is malicious in nature and although the allegations have been levelled with regard to selling one plot through forged patta, yet there is no agreement for any such [2025:RJ-JP:45239] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-251/2013] patta in existence and even no proof with regard to payment of Rs.3,60,000/- has been given. Still the police has registered FIR against the petitioner, whereas it is clear that the FIR has been lodged only to wreak vengeance and to settle the personal scores by invoking criminal law. 4. This Court vide order dated 06.01.2022 directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer, who shall conduct the investigation from the petitioner and protection was also given to the petitioner that he shall not be arrested during such process. 5. Today, one factual report dated 10.03.2025 has been filed by the learned Public Prosecutor which is taken on record, which reveals that after investigation it has come out that there is no Scheme namely Natraj Vihar-II, for which amount was accepted by the petitioner. It has also come out that for dealing with the land of same Scheme, one more criminal case pursuant to FIR No.301/2002 has been registered against the petitioner for committing offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC. 6. I have also perused the contents of the FIR, where specific allegations have been levelled, hence, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to interfere with the impugned FIR as prima facie the offence alleged against the petitioner are made out. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all the grounds taken in this petition, at the time of appropriate stage. 7. In the light of above, the instant Criminal Miscellaneous Petition stands dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/30