HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6634/2025 Madan Rajput S/o Himmat Singh Rajput, Proprietor Of Firm M/s Shriram Gold, R/s Room No. 16, First Floor, Shyam Bai Pandey Chawl, Amba Bai, East Bombay, Maharashtra. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Kusum Jewellers, Through Prorpietor Chiranji Lal Soni , R/o 1574, Jat Ke Kue Ka Rasta, Teesra Chauraha, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanay Jain with Mr. Prakhar Sharma, Mr. Sachin Sharma and Ms. Nimisha Bissa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Neeraj Sharma JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of the impugned FIR No.129/2025 registered with Police Station Nahargarh, District Jaipur City (North) for the offence under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the BNS against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is commercial dispute between the parties. He further submits that as per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the complainant provided certain gold to the petitioner for manufacturing gold chain. Counsel submits that on account of the business transaction between the parties and in order to pressurise the petitioner for recovery of money/recovery of gold, the (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6634/2025] impugned FIR has been registered with vague allegations. Counsel submits that if at all, the complainant has any grievance, he can initiate the civil proceedings against the petitioner, hence no case is made out against the petitioner and the impugned proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR are liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. reported in 2000 (4) SCC 168 and Anukul Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another while deciding SLP (Crl.) No.2682/2020 on 24.09.2025 and the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Rana Ram vs. State of Rajasthan and Another while deciding S.B. Criminal Misc (Pet.) No.4893/2024 on 06.08.2024. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the aforementioned arguments and submitted that certain goods were provided by the complainant to the petitioner for which he has issued a receipt and now those articles have not been returned and the same have been retained by the petitioner. They further submitted that such an act of the petitioner amounts to offence under Bhartiya Nayaya Sanhita, 2023 and the allegations levelled in the FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence, which is required to be investigated by the Police. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6634/2025] 4. Public Prosecutor submits that during the investigation, a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS has been issued to the petitioner, but he has failed to appear before the Investigating Agency, hence 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. At this stage, this Court is not going to adjudge the correctness and genuineness of the allegations made in the impugned FIR. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer. 7. The petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate representation before the Investigating Officer along with the documents in support of his contentions, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. 8. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that any cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, then notice under Section 35 of the BNSS would be issued to the petitioner. In case Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that custodial investigation of the petitioner is required, then at least 15 days notice would be given to him. 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/26