HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6712/2025 Rajendra Kumar Pansari Son Of Shri Madan Lal Pansari, Resident Of 2269, Pansari Bhawan, Ghee Walon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Siddharth Singh Son Of Shri Digvijay Singh, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of 39, Jai Bhawani Nagar, Khatipura Road, Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) At Present Head Security And Administrative Officer, City Palace, Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6687/2025 Rakesh Agarwal Son Of Late Shri Moolchand Agarwal, Resident Of Padmawati Colony, Naroda, Ahamdabad ( Gujrat). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Siddharth Singh Son Of Shri Digvijay Singh, Resident Of 39, Jai Bhawani Nagar, Khatipura Road, Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj). At Present Head Security And Administrative Officer, City Palace, Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Vishnu Bohra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia-PP Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/11/2025 (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6712/2025] 1. By way of filing the criminal misc. petitions, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR Nos. 240/2024 and 239/2024 both registered with Police Station Manak Chowk, Jaipur City (North) under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 and 340(2) of the BNS,2023. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the allotment of land was made by the erstwhile Ruler and the patta of the same has been issued by the Municipal Corporation. Counsel submits that when the complainant-respondent tried to dispossess the petitioners from the subject lands, they filed two separate suits for injunction where temporary injunction application submitted by one of the petitioners has been allowed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II vide order dated 14.05.2025 and the complainant has been restrained not to interfere with the possession of the subject land. Counsel submits that in the light of the order passed by the trial Court, the impugned FIRs lodged against the petitioners with vague allegations are required to be quashed, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the subject lands belong to the erstwhile Ruler of the Jaipur City and the same were never allotted to them. Counsel further submits that the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge has been quashed by the Appellate Court vide order dated 13.10.2025. Counsel submits that the allegation levelled in the impugned FIRs reveal that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners which is required to be investigated by the (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6712/2025] Investigating Officer. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not going into the merits of the matter to adjudge the correctness of the allegations, levelled against the petitioners in the FIRs as the same is the subject matter of investigation, hence this Court cannot look into the merits and correctness of the allegations levelled against both the petitioners at this stage by invoking the inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 BNSS, 2023. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file a representations along with relevant documents in support of their contentions before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. 5. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, then he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS. 6. With the aforesaid observations, both misc. petitions stand disposed of. Stay applications as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/26-27