[2025:RJ-JP:43561] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6625/2025 1. Lallu Ram Jat Son Of Shri Chand Ram Jat, Resident Of Deher Ke Dhani, Sanchoti, Sarna Chaur, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302012, Rajasthan. 2. Prabhu Golada Son Of Shri Ruda Ram, Resident Of Sanchoti, Sarna Chaur, Kishanpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Suja Ram Golada Son Of Ruda Ram Golada, Resident Of Dher Ki Dhani, Sanchoti, Kishanpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Mukesh Kumar Devenda Son Of Shri Kishan Lal Devenda, Resident Of 139, Devendon Ki Dhani, Nangal Kalan, Chomu, Nangal Kalan, Post Nangal, Turkan, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Shankar Lal Choudhary Son Of Shri Chanda Ram, Resident Of Kalwad Road, Sanchoti Deher Ki Dhani, Sarna Chaur, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 6. Om Prakash Yadav Son Of Shri Hanuman Sahay Yadav, Resident Of Haninwalon Ki Dhani, Maheshwas Kalan, Rojda, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 7. Banshi Dhar Yadav Son Of Shri Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, Resident Of Nadiyo Ki Dhani, Kalakh, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 8. Mahesh Chand Son Of Ramavtar, Resident Of Tekaram Ka Mohalla, Village Kanwarpura, Post Gordhanpura, Kotputli, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Shankar Khandelwal Son Of Shri Mohan Lal Khandelwal, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of 171 Officers Campus Vistar, Sirsi Road, Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur District Jaipur West (Raj.). ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5795/2025 1. Deepak Choudhary @ Deepa Ram Jat Son Of Shri Lallu Ram Choudhary, Resident Of Dehar Ki Dhani, Sarna Chour, Kishanpura, Jaipur ( Rajasthan). [2025:RJ-JP:43561] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6625/2025] 2. Kalu Ram Choudhary Son Of Shri Hanuman Sahai Choudhary, Resident Of Dehar Ki Dhani, Sanchoti, Sarna Chour, Jaipur ( Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Shankar Khandelwal Son Of Shri Mohan Lal Khandelwal, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of 171 Officers Campus Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur District Jaipur West (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nav Ratan Singh Mr. Kishan Lal Jangir For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia-PP Mr. Manish Gupta Mr. Deen Dayal Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 30/10/2025 1. Counsel for the petitioners submit that the dispute between the parties pertains to the land bearing Khasra No. 226 which is the existing public way for the petitioners to approach their land and this public way has been encroached by the complainant. Counsel submits that a site inspection report was conducted and fard mauka report was prepared by the Revenue Authority on 15.02.2025 wherein it was found that the land bearing No. 226 is a gravel land which has been encroached by the complainant- respondent. Counsel submits that the complainant was bound not to close this way. Counsel submits that even a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed by the petitioners against the complainant-respondent and another before the Court of Assistant [2025:RJ-JP:43561] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6625/2025] Collector, Jaipur and the same was decreed vide judgment dated 20.01.2022 wherein the complainant-respondent and other persons were directed not to encroach upon the same and not to raise any constructions on the public way. Counsel submits that inspite of the above, when the encroachment was not removed by the complainant-respondent, a protest was raised by the petitioners and in counter blast to the aforesaid, the instant FIR No. 63/2025 has been registered by the complainant-respondent against the petitioners with vague allegations. Counsel submits that the complainant-respondent does not belong to the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe category, hence under these circumstances, the provisions contained under the SC/ST Act, 1989 are not attracted, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 2. Per contra, Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the allegation made in the FIR reveals the commission of offence which is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency. Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submits that a fresh inspection report was prepared by the Patwari on 16.07.2025 wherein it was noted that the land bearing No. 226 does not belong to Gair Mumkin Nala, hence under these circumstances, it is clear that the subject land is not a land from which any way is passing. Counsel submits that the guard of the complainant belongs to the ST Category and he has been abused by calling him casteist names which caused for the FIR to be registered against the petitioners for the offence under the BNS and SC/ST Act. Counsel submits that under these [2025:RJ-JP:43561] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6625/2025] circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the misc. petition is liable to be rejected. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are the subject matter of investigation. Correctness and genuineness of the allegations levelled in the FIR cannot be adjudicated by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 of BNSS and the petitioners would be at liberty to file a detailed comprehensive representation in support of their contentions along with relevant documents before the Investigating Officer who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. 4. Accordingly, both criminal misc. petitions stand disposed of. Stay applications and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/48-49