HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7062/2025 Tejraj Taparia S/o Shri Ramjas, R/o S-1, Mayfair Residency, Sector-5, Vidyadhar Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Shyam Sundar Agarwal S/o Late Shri Shankar Lal Agarwal, R/o B-39, Shankar Trading Company, Kukarkhera Mandi, Murlipura, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Babu Lal Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.338/2025 registered with the Police Station Vishwakarma, District Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding a cold storage warehouse, wherein certain articles/goods of the complainant were stored. Counsel submits that as per the telephonic instructions of the complainant, certain goods were delivered to certain persons. Counsel submits that those persons gave payment of the aforesaid goods to the complainant and certain goods of the complainant are still lying in the storage. Counsel submits that in-spite of above, the instant FIR with vague allegations has (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7062/2025] been registered against the petitioner, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. Counsel submits that before approaching this Court, the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation before the Investigating Officer/Commissioner of Police by providing aforesaid facts, which have been argued before this Court, but no heed has been paid and the Investigating Agency is bent upon to apprehend the petitioner in the instant false concocted case, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner reveal commission of cognizable offence, which are required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency, hence interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not going to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations and the defence of the petitioner at this stage while exercising its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are the subject matter of investigation. 5. Looking to the fact that the petitioner has already submitted a detailed comprehensive representation before the Commissioner of Police/Investigating Officer, he may again file one more representation before the Investigating Officer, (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7062/2025] which would be considered by him strictly in accordance with law. 6. If the Investigating Officer comes to a conclusion that any cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, 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/66