HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6984/2025 1. Bhupesh Kumar Goyal S/o Late Shri Puranchand Goyal, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Flat No. F-2, Building No. 54- 55, Shri Shyam Residency, Bhawani Nagar, Murlipura, Rajasthan 302039. 2. Tarun Goyal S/o Shri Bhupesh Kumar Goyal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Flat No. F-2, Building No. 54-55, Shri Shyam Residency, Bhawani Nagar, Murlipura, Rajasthan 302039. 3. Akshay Agarwal S/o Shri Bhupesh Kumar Goyal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Flat No. F-2, Building No. 54-55, Shri Shyam Residency, Bhawani Nagar, Murlipura, Rajasthan 302039. ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Premlata Garg W/o Mukesh Kumar, Aged About 60 Years, R/o 44, Kanti Nagar, Kanti Chandra Road, Banipark , Jaipur (West), Rajasthan, India. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Giriraj Prasad Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 13/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR No. 13/2025, registered with Police Station Khora Bisal, Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3) and 352 BNS. (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6984/2025] 2 Counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact the subject land was sold by the Directors of the company M/s Eleven Eleven Pvt. Ltd. to the petitioners. Counsel further submits that when the petitioners initiated the process of reselling the subject land, an objection was raised by an employee of the aforesaid company, i.e., complainant No. 2. Counsel further submits that in fact, the alleged incident stated in the FIR has not even occurred rather the complainant’s side became aggressor and chased the petitioner after tearing her clothes. Counsel submits that the entire incident has been recorded in the video which reveals the correctness of the incident but the Investigating Officer is not taking into account all these facts and circumstances, which have been narrated before this Court. Counsel submits that no such incident has occurred but a false concocted FIR with vague allegations have been levelled against the petitioners to escape from the liability of delivering possession of the subject land to the petitioners. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the contents of the FIR reveals commission of a cognizable offence, which is required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer, hence interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not going into the merits of the matter to adjudge the correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the FIR, it is the subject matter of investigation, hence this Court cannot look into the merits and correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner at this stage by invoking its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 BNSS, 2023. However, (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6984/2025] the petitioners are at liberty to file a representation along with relevant documents in support of their contentions before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. 5. In case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion 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. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of., (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/61