[2025:RJ-JP:44326] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6628/2025 1. Shabrunisha W/o Dilshad Mansuri Khan, R/o 24-B, Pulia No. 2, Mohalla Dakotan, Delhi Bye Pass Road, Galta Gate, Jaipur. 2. Dilshad Mansuri Khan S/o Late Mustak, R/o 24-B, Pulia No. 2, Mohalla Dakotan, Delhi Bye Pass Road, Galta Gate, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Mohammad Shamim Khan S/o Late Habibullah Khan, R/o 2415, Mohalla Peelkhana, Near Babu Ka Tiba, Chowkdi Topkhana Hanjuri, Ramganj, Jaipur City, Presently R/o 1790, Fourth Crossing, Haldiyon Ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Manak Chowk, Jaipur City. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohammad Aslam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.141/2025 registered with Police Station Subhash Chowk, Jaipur City (North) for the offences under Sections 351(3), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject land was purchased by the complainant after paying certain consideration amount. Learned counsel submits that when the market price of the subject land was not increased, hence, the instant false FIR with incorrect allegations have been levelled [2025:RJ-JP:44326] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6628/2025] against the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that, in case, the market price of the subject land is not increased, the petitioners are not liable and responsible for the same, hence, the instant FIR lodged against the petitioners be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that as per the factual report of the investigation received from the Investigating Officer, there exists no such land, which was sold to the complainant by the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that fabricating certain pattas, the subject land was sold to the complainant, hence, under these circumstances, the prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, which reveals commission of cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Whether there exists subject land or not and whether any patta have been fabricated by the petitioners or not are the subject matter of investigation, which is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency and the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 6. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to approach the Investigating Officer by way of filing a representation, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. 7. The Investigating Officer is directed to consider the averments of the same and in case, he comes to the conclusion [2025:RJ-JP:44326] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6628/2025] that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, then he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS. 8. With the aforesaid observations, 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 Karan/46