[2025:RJ-JP:32634] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2427/2025 Nathu Ram Meena S/o Sh. Ganga Ram Meena, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 6, Ganga Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Dhanraj Meena S/o Sh. Koshore Lal Meena, aged anout 45 years, R/o Village Jakhoda, Tehsil Sapotra, District Karauli Currently Residing At D 004, Mahima Panorama, Jagatpura, Jaipur ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2619/2025 Nathu Ram Meena S/o Sh. Ganga Ram Meena, Aged About 57 Years, R/o 6, Ganga Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Nauni Lal Singh s/o Ramkishore Gurjar, R/o 3 Suraj Nagar (East), Civli Lines, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. VR Bajwa, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Daksh Pareek Mr. Amar Kumar Ms. Savita Nathawat Mr. Ayush Sharma Mr. Arjun Singh Mr. Moin Khan Mr. Ashish Kabra Mr. Keshav Parashar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, PP with Mr. Vinod Sharma (RPS), ACP (I.O.), P.S. - Sanganer, Jaipur – present in person Mr. Manoj Kumar, SHO (I.O.), P.S. – Pratapnagar, Jaipur - present in person Mr. RK Mathur, Sr.Adv. with Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms.Shobha Sharma & Ms. Shalini Rai Mr. SK Gupta, Sr.Adv. with Mr. Rahul Sharma Mr. Ram Ratan Gurjar [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (2 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment Reserved on : 14/08/2025 Pronounced on : 03/ 09/2025 1. In view of the intertwined nature of the controversy involved, coupled with the identical factual matrix emerging in the present matters, and with the consent of the learned counsel representing both sides, the instant batch of writ petitions has been heard analogously and is being decided of by this common judgment. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RELIEFS PRAYED: 2. SBCRLMP No. 2427/2025 has been filed with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that in view of the cogent facts, law and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this Criminal Misc. Petition and may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR No.453/2022 registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur City (East). Any other order(s) relief(s), which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the Petitioner.” and SBCRLMP No. 2619/2025 has been filed with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that in view of the cogent facts, law and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow this Criminal Misc. Petition and may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned FIR No.1017/2012 registered at Police Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur. Any other order(s)/ relief(s), which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted in favour of the Petitioner.” [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (3 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] 3. The substratum of the petitioner’s case, as canvassed, is that the criminal proceedings initiated vide FIR No.1017/2012 and FIR No.453/2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned FIRs’) are nothing but a product of falsehood, concoction and fabrication. It has been urged that the impugned FIRs have been lodged at the behest of certain land grabbers/mafias, who, harbouring ulterior motives, have set the complainant into motion so as to harass and pressurize the petitioner. 4. The grievance of the petitioner succinctly is that FIR No.1017/2012 pertains to Plot No.36, admeasuring 222 square yards, situated at Jai Ambey Vihar; whereas FIR No.453/2022 relates to Plot No.8 measuring 180 square yards, Plot No.9 measuring 900 square yards, and Plot Nos. 23 and 24 measuring 200 square yards each. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: 5. During the course of arguments, it was vehemently contended by learned counsel senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the disputed property in question is, in fact, under the influence and control of powerful bureaucratic and police officials, as also their Power of Attorney holders. It was urged that in respect of FIR No.1017/2012 (supra), albeit the same was registered in the year 2012, the investigation culminated only on 20.07.2013, when the police authorities submitted a negative Final Report, recording possession of one Shri Jagmohan Meena over Plot No.36. Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged claim of Jai Ambey Scheme, purportedly floated by Laxmi [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (4 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, was upon due investigation found to be upon forged and fabricated documents, based on a criminal conspiracy, and therefore, wholly untenable. 6. Adverting to FIR No.453/2022 and the consequential order dated 02.11.2022, passed on a protest petition, it was argued that the same is equally unsustainable in law for the following reasons: 6.1 That the dispute raised therein is essentially of a civil nature, concerning title between rival societies, i.e. Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti and Baba R.N. Gaur Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti; 6.2 That the complainant’s claim, premised upon the alleged Jai Ambey Scheme of Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, is wholly misconceived. 6.2.1 Reliance was placed on the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2015, rendered in a civil suit for permanent injunction filed by Chotu Singh & Ors. qua plots nos.34, 35, 38, 39 and 29 in the very same scheme. 6.2.2 In that suit, after trial and upon framing of issues, the claim of Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti was found to be baseless. 6.2.3 It was further pointed out that the appeal preferred against the said decree was dismissed on 30.01.2017 by the Court of the Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur District, Jaipur, thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2015. 6.3 That even the alleged pattas which are said to have been issued by the society, were denied by its own office bearers, and no records or documentary proof in support thereof were [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (5 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] produced. On the contrary, the office bearers themselves specifically denied ever having created any Jai Ambey Scheme or having allotted plots thereunder. 7. It was further contended that Shri Bhanwar Lal, the recorded khatedar of Khasra No.106, admeasuring 1.23 hectares, categorically denied having executed any agreement in favour of either society. However, as per the FSL report, the signatures on the agreement dated 25.04.1997 were found to be genuine. It was pointed out that documents relating to Jai Ambey Colony, floated by Baba R.N. Gaur Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, were duly produced before the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA). By order dated 03.12.2001, passed under the provisions of Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956, JDA resumed the agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes, thereby vesting it in the State Government. A copy of the site plan of Jai Ambey Colony (Annexure 7 in Petition No.2619/2025) was also placed on record. 8. Further, it was submitted that even the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur in respect of the said dispute has been assailed by Baba R.N. Gaur Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti before the Revenue Board, Ajmer. The appeal as on date is subjudice before the said authority however, an interim order has been granted against the order of the Divisional Commissioner. 9. In the aforementioned nitty-gritty, learned counsel submitted that once the very claim of Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti over the land in dispute has been denied by its office bearers and the khatedar moreover, once a Civil Court has already adjudicated [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (6 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] upon the matter and found their claim inaccurate; and once even the alleged plot-holders have been impleaded and adjudged against, no criminal proceedings survive. It was urged that continuance of the present criminal proceedings is wholly unwarranted, vexatious and an abuse of the process of law, and thus deserves to be quashed with exemplary costs. 10. It was further submitted that the basic ingredients of Sections 420 and 406 IPC are not made out in the present case, inasmuch as there has never been any direct interaction, transaction or privity between the complainant and the accused; and the same are the vital ingredients for commission of an offence as stated under Section 420 and 406 of IPC. It was contended that a bare perusal of the FIR itself demonstrates this position. In the absence of any act amounting to cheating or forgery, as defined under Section 415 IPC, and in the absence of any direct inducement, no offence is disclosed on the face of it. 11. To buttress the aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed upon a catena of judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, R. Kalyani v. Janak C. Mehta: (2009) 1 SCC 516, wherein the principles governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of proceedings were reiterated, Mohammad Wajid and another Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.: AIR 2023 SC 3784, Learned counsel also drew the Court’s attention to the fact that in an identical situation arising out of FIR Nos.249-250/2011, the police authorities, considering the FSL report and the statements of witnesses, had themselves closed the proceedings. [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (7 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] 12. Thus, the sum and substance of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the controversy raised in the impugned FIRs is essentially civil in nature, centering around disputed title and rival claims of housing societies, which already stand adjudicated upon by competent civil courts. Moreover, the very foundation of the complainant’s case, i.e. the claim of Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, has not only been denied by its own office bearers and the khatedar of the land in question, but has also been judicially negatived. In such circumstances, the initiation and continuance of criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law, actuated by mala fides at the behest of land mafias and vested interests. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned FIRs and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom be quashed and set aside, with exemplary costs. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS : 13. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State, assisted by the Investigating Officers, submitted that as per the revenue records, Khasra No.106 measuring 4 Bigha and 15 Biswa of land stands recorded in the name of cultivator Bhanwar Lal Gurjar. During the course of investigation, Bhanwar Lal Gurjar categorically stated that he had never sold the said land either to Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti or to any other society. However, the FSL report unequivocally certified that the agreement in question did bear the genuine signatures of Bhanwar Lal Gurjar. It was further admitted by the learned Public [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (8 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] Prosecutor that the JDA vide order dated 03.12.2001, had converted the land in question from agricultural to non-agricultural use under Section 90-B of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. The said proceedings, it was submitted, have been challenged and are subjudice as a civil dispute, wherein Baba R.N. Gaur Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti is a contesting party. 14. The reply of the State also acknowledges that the office bearers of Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti themselves categorically stated that no scheme in the name of Jai Ambey Vihar was ever floated by the said society, and that pattas in respect of the disputed land were issued by unauthorised persons, such as Yasin Khan. In this regard, FIR Nos. 249–250/2011 had already been registered, and a challan was filed therein. It was further pointed out that in the course of investigation, Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti failed to produce any evidence relating to an agreement with Bhanwar Lal Gurjar, or any documents regarding allotment of plots to the complainant, or even proof of the very creation of the society. On the contrary, Shri Om Prakash Gupta, in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., denied that any colony named Jai Ambey Vihar had ever been floated. It also came on record that residents claiming allotments from both Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti and Baba R.N. Gaur Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti were presently residing on the disputed land. Notably, the FSL report confirmed the genuineness of the agreement dated 25.04.1997 purportedly executed between Baba R.N. Gaur Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti and Bhanwar Lal Gurjar. [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (9 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] 15. It was also not disputed that civil suits and proceedings before the revenue authorities, including those seeking permanent injunction, are pending; however, it was contended that such civil litigation does not foreclose the maintainability of criminal proceedings. It was also submitted that the petitioner has certain criminal antecedents, which were duly brought on record. 16. On behalf of complainant, learned Senior Counsel Mr. R.K. Mathur, assisted by Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, Ms. Shobha Sharma and Ms. Shalini Rai, as well as learned Senior Counsel Mr. S.K. Gupta, assisted by Mr. Rahul Sharma, submitted that the protest order dated 02.11.2022, whereby further investigation was directed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., has not been challenged by the petitioner, and therefore, it has attained finality. 17. It was further argued that the provisions of Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) cannot be invoked cursorily, particularly when the petitioner has suppressed his criminal antecedents. It was emphasised that various allottees of the plots allegedly issued by Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti are in settled possession, and their claims are supported by recognised documents such as AADHAR cards, electricity connections, etc. It was contended that the issues raised in the earlier civil suit did not involve a conclusive adjudication of the title of Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that a continuing dispute exists regarding title and nature of the land between the khatedar, Bhanwar Lal Gurjar, and Baba R.N. Gaur Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti. 18. It was further submitted that records pertaining to Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti are missing from the JDA and [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (10 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] other relevant offices, which, according to the respondents, should be viewed adversely against the petitioner. It was argued that the suit for injunction relied upon by the petitioner cannot be construed as a conclusive adjudication of title, and the mere filing of a negative final report in the year 2013 does not exonerate the petitioner of criminal liability. It was further contended that the petitioner is a land mafia who has harassed several innocent persons, including the complainant in the present case. 19. In support of the contentions made insofar learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in in Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.: AIR 2021 SC 1918 and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335; and submitted that in the matters involving disputed questions of fact, the High Courts should refrain from exercising its inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings at the threshold. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: 20. Upon a meticulous and circumspect examination of the entire record, while duly appreciating the facts and circumstances delineated hereinabove, and having regard to the authoritative pronouncements cited at the Bar as well as the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court, at this stage, considers it apposite to crystallize and delineate the incontrovertible facts as under:- 20.1 That the disputes as projected through the impugned FIRs are predominantly of a civil nature, revolving around rival claims of title and possession between two co-operative housing societies, namely Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti and [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (11 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] Baba R.N. Gaur Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, as also the khatedar Bhanwar Lal Gurjar. The issue as to whether any scheme called Jai Ambey Vihar was ever floated by Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti stands seriously disputed, even by the office bearers of the society itself, and the claim of title has already been adjudicated against the said society by competent civil courts. 20.2 The record further reflects that in relation to FIR No.1017/2012, a negative final report had been filed on 20.07.2013, upon due investigation, holding possession in favour of Jagmohan Meena and observing that the claim of Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti was based on forged and fabricated documents. 20.3 Likewise, with regard to FIR No.453/2022, the dispute again centers on questions of title and civil possession, which are already pending adjudication before competent revenue and civil fora. 20.4 Subsequently, vide order dated 02.11.2022, further investigation was directed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for reconsideration of the matter. 20.5 In the course of such further investigation, the following admitted facts have come to light: 20.5.1 That in a similar factual matrix, one Chotu Singh had instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction qua certain plots of the Jai Ambey Scheme purportedly floated by Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti. In that proceeding, the said Samiti was impleaded as a necessary party, issues were duly framed, and evidence was led. [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (12 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] 20.5.2 After a full-fledged trial, the civil court, by judgments dated 28.04.2015 and 30.01.2017 (Annex.5 & Annex.6 to Petition No.2619/2025), categorically held that Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti had never floated any scheme by the name of Jai Ambey Vihar/Scheme. The said finding stands confirmed even by the office bearers of the Samiti, who admitted that no such record was available. No documents establishing existence of the alleged scheme were ever produced before the investigating officer or any other authority. 20.5.3 The khatedar of the land in dispute, Bhanwar Lal Gurjar, has also specifically denied having sold the land to Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti. 20.6 Thence, it can be noted that the FSL report and the agreement by the Khatedar both are in favor of the Baba R.N. Gaur Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti. Moreover, no agreement and records with the Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti are made available. 20.7 Reliance on FIR Nos.249-250/2011 and the results thereof, which reveal contradictory conclusions by police authorities in similar situations, further weakens the case of the complainant. 21. It is trite law that criminal law cannot be permitted to be set in motion in matters which are essentially civil in nature, lest it become a tool of harassment. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal (Supra) has categorically held that where the allegations in the FIR do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, or where the proceedings [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (13 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] are manifestly attended with mala fides, the same may be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 22. Qua the matter at hand; tested on these settled parameters, it is prima facie opined that the basic ingredients of the offences alleged under Sections 420 and 406 IPC are not made out in the instant case. There is no allegation of direct inducement, deception, or entrustment between the complainant and the petitioner moreover, there is no privity of contract or personal transaction between the complainant and the present petitioner. The sine qua non of cheating, as defined under Section 415 IPC, is absent. A negative final report, coupled with the admissions of the office bearers of the society, further fortify the petitioner’s stand that no prima facie offence is disclosed. Moreso, mere possession of certain allotment letters issued by a society whose title itself has been adjudicated against in civil proceedings, cannot vest any enforceable legal right nor furnish a foundation for criminal liability. 23. Equally apposite is the principle ex debito justitiae, i.e., the duty of the Court to secure the ends of justice by preventing misuse of its process. Once the substratum of the FIRs is found to be devoid of criminality and founded only upon civil disputes, perpetuating the proceedings would amount to harassment. Recently, in the dictum encapsulated in Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.: (2025 INSC 512), the Apex Court reiterated that criminal law should not be invoked to settle private civil disputes. Similarly, in R. Nagender Yadav v. State of Telangana: [2022 (17) SCALE 516], it was held that allegations which are essentially civil in character cannot be given [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (14 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] the cloak of criminality. Withal, reliance can also be placed upon the ratio enunciated in Naresh Kumar & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.: 2024 INSC 196 whereby the Court opined that when a dispute is purely civil in nature, such as a breach of contract or allied issues, the High Courts should not hesitate to invoke their inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 of BNSS to quash criminal proceedings that are mere cloak for civil disputes; Dr. Sonia Verma & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Anr.: 2024 INSC 227 wherein, the Apex Court quashed FIRs filed in property disputes, noting that when criminal complaints are kept pending merely qua the question of validity of documents (e.g., sale deeds) that is already being contested in civil courts, continuing criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process. The relevant extract from Dr. Sonia Verma & Anr. (supra) is reproduced herein below: “17. Therefore, when the High Court was apprised of such a matter wherein the substance of the criminal complaint served only to cast doubt on the validity of a commercial transaction (in this case, a sale deed for the transfer of property), and the appropriate civil remedy was already being pursued, the High Court ought to have quashed the criminal proceedings. 18. For the reasons stated above, the Impugned Order is set aside and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of the Subject FIR are quashed and set aside. Needless to say, this order shall not have any effect on the Civil Suit pending between the parties and the same shall be decided in accordance with law. 19. Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed.” (emphasis supplied) 24. Further reliance can also be placed upon the guidelines encapsulated in the ratio of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.: Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2012. [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (15 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] “7. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of court.” (emphasis supplied) CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS: 25. Upon due consideration of the rival submissions, perusal of the record, and in light of the settled principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments as referred hereinabove, this Court finds: 25.1 That the disputes projected through the impugned FIRs are predominantly civil in nature, revolving around rival claims of title and possession between housing societies and the khatedar; 25.2 That the material on record, including negative final report (of the year 2012), categorical findings of competent civil courts disbelieving the very existence of the alleged scheme, and the admitted position of the office bearers themselves, unequivocally demonstrate that no prima facie offence under Sections 420 or 406 IPC is made out against the petitioners; 25.3 That the essential ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust, namely inducement, deception, or entrustment, are conspicuously absent. For an act to qualify as cheating, the [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (16 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] governing statue mandates, deception of a person, fraudulently, intentionally or dishonestly inducing of that person. In the case in hand there is complete absence of any direct interaction between the complainant and the accused. It is trite law that the element of inducement necessarily presupposes a communication or representation made by the accused to the complainant, whereby the latter is deceived into parting with property or acting to his detriment. In absence of such contact, the sine qua non of deception and inducement cannot be established. 25.4 That the record unequivocally demonstrates that the civil courts, after full adjudication, have categorically held that no scheme by the name of Jai Ambey Vihar was ever floated by Shri Laxmi Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, a finding which even the office bearers of the Samiti have affirmed. The investigating authorities, therefore, cannot take a view contrary to such conclusive findings of competent civil fora or to the categorical admissions of the office bearers of the society. 25.5 Likewise, reliance upon an FSL report, as also admitted by the investigating officer, allegedly signifying the khatedar’s signature on an agreement in favour of Baba R.N. Gaur Grah Nirman Sahakari Samiti, which negates the complainant’s version per-se. 26. It is a settled proposition that criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to degenerate into instruments of harassment for matters essentially civil in character. Moreover, the police authorities, while conducting investigation, cannot travel beyond or run contrary to civil court findings so as to impart a criminal complexion to disputes of settled civil nature. Therefore, tested on [2025:RJ-JP:32634] (17 of 17) [CRLMP-2427/2025] this touchstone, the substratum of the FIRs, being bereft of criminality, does not warrant further investigation or trial. 27. In view of the above, and guided by the principles laid down in Rikhab Birani & Anr. (supra), Bhajan Lal (supra), R. Kalyani (supra), Naresh Kumar & Anr. (supra), Paramjeet Batra (supra), Dr. Sonia Verma & Anr. (supra) and Niharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) this Court is of the considered opinion that both the petitions succeed and are hereby allowed. Consequently, FIR No.453/2022, registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, Jaipur City (East), and FIR No.1017/2012, registered at Police Station JDA, Jaipur, together with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed and set aside in toto. 28. Stay applications and other pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 29. A copy of this judgment be placed in the connected petition. (SAMEER JAIN),J Preeti Asopa