MOHD. JAVED KHAN @ AKRAM S/O ACHCHHAN KHAN v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMP/485/2025 · 2025-01-27
Ganesh Ram Meena
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4637 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4637 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:3723] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 485/2025 Mohd. Javed Khan @ Akram S/o Achchhan Khan, R/o H.no. 478, 30 Futa Road, Near Bilal Masjid, Ashok Vihar, Loni Dehat, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. ----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through PP
2. Tikam Chand S/o Kalyan Mal, R/o Plot No. 796, Shanti Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Shipra Path, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Order 27/01/2025
1. This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner u/S 528 BNSS with a prayer to quash and set aside the FIR No. 517/2024, registered at Police Station Chomu, Jaipur (West) for offences u/S 318(4), 316(2) & 61(2)(a) of BNS.
2.
Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that as per the averments made in the FIR, he is only a mediator for deal between the complainant and the other party. He further submits that the accused petitioner has not committed any act which can be said to be an offence of cheating.
3. After going through the averments made in the FIR, this Court finds that there are certain allegations against the accused petitioner of being mediator between the parties, whereas the one
[2025:RJ-JP:3723] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-485/2025] party has committed cheating with the complainant while transporting the dust in the name of copper dust. The averment clearly speaks of the involvement of the present accused petitioner in the whole transaction and in such circumstances and at this stage it cannot be said that the accused petitioner has not committed any offence. It is a matter of investigation.
4.
Learned counsel for the accused petitioner could not point out any ground for quashing the FIR as the FIR can be quashed only on very limited grounds such as that the averments made in the FIR do not constitute any offence or that the FIR is registered without jurisdiction or with intent to malicious prosecution.
5. This Court does not find any ground to interfere. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed.
6. Stay application stands disposed of.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J GAURAV SRIVASTAVA /230