[2025:RJ-JP:47800] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7018/2025 Hajari Lal Gurjar Son Of Shri Ramkaran Gurajr, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of B-106, Siddharth Nagar Sawai Gator Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Heera Lal Meena Son Of Late Shri Mangalram Meena, Aged About 56 Years, Resident Of 1, Sawai Gator Siddarth Nagar, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amitabh Jatav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 25/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.18/2025, registered with the Police Station Jaipur Airport, District Jaipur City (East) under Sections 303(2), 318(4), 329(3), 336(3), 351(2), 338, 340(2), 324(4), 61(2)(a) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land was allotted to one Shyam Asumod by the society on 25.08.1990, who sold the same by a registered sale deed dated 20.10.2010 to one Moti Lal, who thereafter sold it to one Komal Mantri vide registered sale deed dated 22.11.2010, thereafter the said Komal Mantri executed power of attorney in [2025:RJ-JP:47800] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7018/2025] favour of one Rangnath Maru, who sold the plot by way of registered sale deed in favour of one Hajari Lal Gurjar and Sita Ram. Counsel submits that on the basis of the aforesaid documents, the petitioner is the owner of the subject land. Now, a false FIR has been lodged against the petitioner with vague allegations that he has encroached upon the said land. Counsel submits that the respondent No.2 has no concern whatsoever with the subject land and in-spite of the same, the impugned FIR has been lodged with vague allegations, hence interference of this Court is warranted and the FIR is liable to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the land in question belonged to Khatedar Ranmal, who has executed the sale deed in the form of an agreement in favour of the complainant on 17.06.2013 and on the basis of the same, the complainant is in possession of the subject land. Counsel submits that the petitioner is not having a clear title over the subject land and there is no mention of the same in the aforesaid documents. Counsel further submits that when the peace was disturbed by the petitioner, the Khatedar Ranmal filed a complaint against the petitioner and in the said complaint, orders have been passed to bound down the petitioner to maintain peace and tranquility. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. At the same time, the Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the allegations levelled in the [2025:RJ-JP:47800] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7018/2025] impugned FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence, hence the matter is required to be investigated, therefore, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Two rival claims have been made by the petitioner as well as the complainant with regard to the subject land, on the basis of certain documents and both of them are claiming themselves as the owner of the said land in question. 7. This Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 of the BNSS cannot adjudge the correctness of the allegations levelled and cannot determine the right title of the respective parties on the subject land. Certainly, their rights would be determined by the competent Court of law, but looking to the fact that the contents of the FIR reveal commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency. If at all the petitioner is placing reliance upon certain documents, he would be at liberty to file a detailed comprehensive representation in the office of the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. 8. Even if, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, he would issue a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS to the petitioner and at least 15 days prior notice would be issued in advance before proceeding further against the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:47800] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7018/2025] 9. 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/75