[2025:RJ-JP:49372] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6511/2025 1. Garima Kanwar Wife Of Chandra Shekhar, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Toliyasar, Badi Kalla, District Nagaur, Presently Resident Of Shushant City, Kalwar Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. Ripudaman Singh Son Of Pratap Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Toliyasar, Badi Kalla, District Nagaur, Presently Resident Of Shushant City, Kalwar Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 3. Chandra Shekhar Son Of Pratap Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Toliyasar, Badi Kalla, District Nagaur, Presently Resident Of Shushant City, Kalwar Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Mohammed Asif Son Of Aziz Khan, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Beswa, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Arpit Srivastava For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP Mr.Subhash Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/12/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned F.I.R. No.180/2025 registered at the Police Station Fatehpur Sadar, District Sikar for the offence under Sections 318(4) & 316(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.3 and the brother of the respondent-complainant are [2025:RJ-JP:49372] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6511/2025] residing in gulf country and on account of some dispute between them, the impugned F.I.R. has been registered with incorrect allegations on behalf of the brother of the complainant, wherein it has been alleged that certain amount was paid to the petitioners for the purpose of sale of property. Counsel submits that no written document was executed between the parties, hence, under these circumstances, it cannot be believed that there was any transaction between the parties with regard to the aforesaid sale- purchase of any property. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the impugned F.I.R. is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to quashed. 3. Lastly, he argued that the victim has not lodged the impugned F.I.R. rather it has been lodged by the friend of the victim. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer raised by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that on account of cordial relation of the petitioner No.3 with the brother of the complainant, no document was executed, but certain amount was transferred into the accounts of the petitioners, but in spite of receipt of the amount, the property was not sold, hence, under these circumstances, the impugned F.I.R. has been registered against them. 5. They conjointly submits that the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. reveal commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition filed by the petitioners is liable to rejected. [2025:RJ-JP:49372] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6511/2025] 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. This Court while exercising its inherent powers contained under Section 528 of the BNSS and considering the issue as to whether there was any business transaction between the parties or not; for what purpose, the money was given and deposited in the account of the petitioners by the victim; all these facts are required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer as this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer for the said purpose. 8. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to submit a representation along-with relevant documents in support thereof before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /51