[2025:RJ-JP:48663] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6120/2025 Smt. Lalita Devi W/o Shri Rakesh Kumar, aged about 43 Years, R/o Plot No. 36-A, Chinkara Colony, Khatipura,vaishali Nagar, Jaipur at present Jogiyo Ka Mohalla,bindayaka, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Sho, P/s Bindayaka, Jaipur West, Rajasthan. 3. Commissioner of Police, Metropolitan, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Sohan Lal Yogi S/o Shri Kanaram Yogi, aged about 61 Years, R/o Sirsi Road, Yogio Ka Mohalla, Bindayka Post Bindayaka, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Accused). 5. Banwari Yogi S/o Shri Sohan Lal Yogi, aged about 39 Years, R/o Sirsi Road, Yogio Ka Mohalla, Bindayka Post Bindayaka, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Accused). 6. Deepak Yogi S/o Shri Sohan Lal Yogi, aged about 28 Years, R/o Sirsi Road, Yogio Ka Mohalla, Bindayka Post Bindayaka, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Accused). ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 384/2024 1. Sohan Lal Yogi S/o Shri Kanaram Yogi, aged about 61 Years, R/o Sirsi Road, Yogio Ka Mohalla, Bindayaka Post Bindayaka, Jaipur. 2. Banwari Yogi S/o Sohan Lal Yogi, aged about 39 Years, R/o 116, Yo R/o Sirsi Road, Yogio Ka Mohalla, Bindayaka Post Bindayaka, Jaipur. 3. Deepak Yogi S/o Sohan Lal Yogi, aged about 28 Years, R/o Sirsi Road, Yogio Ka Mohalla, Bindayaka Post Bindayaka, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Lalita Devi W/o Rakesh Kumar, R/o Plot No. 36-A, Chinkara Colony, Khatipura, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West) [2025:RJ-JP:48663] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6120/2025] at present R/o Jogiyo Ka Mohalla, Bindayaka, Jaipur (West). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Anil Kumar Tailor Ms.Swati Tank Mr.Manish Yadav (in CRLMP No.6120/2025) Mr.Chandrahas Choudhary (in CRLMP No.384/2024) For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP Mr.Anil Kumar Tailor Ms.Swati Tank Mr.Manish Yadav (in CRLMP No.384/2024) JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/12/2025 1. The S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.384/2024 has been submitted by the accused-petitioners praying for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. No.306/2023 registered at the Police Station Bindayaka, District Jaipur (West) for the offence under Sections 341, 323 & 504 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. While S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6120/2025 has been submitted by the complainant seeking directions to the Investigating Officer for conducting fair and impartial investigation in the same F.I.R. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the subject land is in possession of the petitioners and no other persons have any concern whatsoever with the subject land. But in spite of the above, the complainant is claiming her possession over the subject land without any basis, and she has also lodged [2025:RJ-JP:48663] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6120/2025] the impugned F.I.R. with vague allegations against the accused- petitioners. Hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the arguments submitted by the petitioner and submitted that one Ramkishore Pareek submitted an application before the Gram Panchayat, Bindayaka on 10.05.1981 for obtaining patta of the subject land and as per the record of the Panchayat, the subject land came in possession of one Krishan Kumar Pareek, in a family settlement. Thereafter, he sold the subject land by way of an agreement to sell to one Rakesh Kumar, i.e., husband of the complainant by a registered sale deed. Hence, the complainant is in possession of the subject land. Counsel submits that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. reveal commission of a cognizable offence and the same are required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. In rebuttal, counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid patta/ sale deed pertains to a land belonging to a school, while the subject land is situated just behind the school premises. Hence, the complainant has no title over the subject land, and the petitioner is claiming his adverse possession on the subject land on the basis of his uninterrupted possession. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court while exercising its powers contained under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. cannot adjudicate the correctness and genuineness of the allegations. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer and the claim of the rival [2025:RJ-JP:48663] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6120/2025] sides cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court on the subject land. 7. The petitioner as well as the complainant would be at liberty to submit their respective representation along-with the supporting documents before the Investigating Officer within a period of 15 days from today, who shall investigate the same strictly in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the instant criminal misc. petitions stand disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /38-39