[2025:RJ-JP:50155] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6683/2025 1. Mahipal Singh S/o Shri Than Singh, R/o Hathaini Tehsil/ District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 2. Lovkesh Kumar S/o Shri Vishvendra Singh, R/o Hathaini Tehsil/ District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Siyaram, aged about 52 Years, R/o Hathaini, Police Station Chiksana, Tehsil And District Bharatpur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6136/2025 Sheela W/o Vijendra Singh, R/o Lalpur, Tehsil Mant, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Siyaram, aged about 52 Years, R/o Hathaini, Police Station Chiksana, Tehsil and District Bharatpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Paras Jain Mr.Mukesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP Mr.Sahil Hussain for Mr.Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/12/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:50155] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6683/2025] 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petitions, a challenge has been led to the impugned F.I.R. No.523/2025 registered at Police Station Mathuragate, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4) & 61(2) BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject land belonged to one Vishvendra Singh, who sold the same by way of registered sale deed to the petitioner-Sheela and Mahipal Singh and Lovkesh Kumar were the attesting witnesses of the said registered sale deed. Counsel submits that as per the case of the complainant, the said Vishvendra Singh executed an agreement to sell in his favour on 04.10.2024 with regard to certain part of the subject land, but the said Vishvendra Singh has sold the entire subject land to Sheela. Counsel submits that now, the complainant has submitted the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 04.10.2024 as well as for cancellation of the registered sale deed dated 18.07.2025, hence, under these circumstances, no case is made out against the petitioners as the matter is sub- judice before the competent Civil Court. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. be quashed in favour of the petitioners in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radheshyam Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2024 SC (Supp) 1597. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the subject land was earlier sold by one Vishvendra Singh to the complainant by way of an agreement to sell on 04.10.2024 and [2025:RJ-JP:50155] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6683/2025] maximum amount of the sale consideration was made, and when the registered sale deed was not executed in favour of the complainant, he served a legal notice to Vishvendra Singh on 17.07.2025 and on the very next day, i.e., on 18.07.2025, the subject land has been sold to frustrate the agreement of the complainant, which reveals the mindset of the said accused person- Vishvendra Singh to frustrate the agreement of the complainant. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. reveal commission of a cognizable offence and the matter is required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court while exercising its powers contained under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. cannot adjudge the correctness and the genuineness of the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. as to whether the petitioner-Sheela is a bona fide purchaser or not or whether the petitioners-Mahipal Singh and Lovkesh were having any knowledge about the earlier agreement entered by Vishvendra Singh with the complainant or not. All these facts are also required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer, during the course of investigation. 6. This Court cannot record a finding at this stage, certainly, the allegations are required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. 7. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to submit a representation along-with relevant documents in support of their [2025:RJ-JP:50155] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6683/2025] contentions before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. 8. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that any cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, he would issue notice under Section 35 of the B.N.S.S. to the petitioners. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petitions stand disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /26-27