HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7063/2025 Mr. Pranav Ansal S/o Mr. Sushil Ansal., Aged About 56 Years, R/o W-117, 3Rd Floor, Gk-2, New Delhi, 110048 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Ramchandra, Officer, Excise Police Station, Phulera, District Jaipur Rural ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Dheeraj Palia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned FIR No.14/2025-26 registered with the Police Station Excise, Phulera, District Jaipur Rural, Rajasthan under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations levelled in the FIR, certain illicit liquor was recovered from one empty house bearing No.DH-04 situated at Sushant City First. Counsel submits that the aforesaid house bearing No.DH-04 was sold to one Abhijeet Vardhan and Harshvardhan by way of an allotment made subsequent to an application submitted in the year 2010, thereafter, he started making payment of the maintenance amount to the (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7063/2025] resident welfare society. Counsel submits that the company of the petitioner was declared as insolvent by the NCLT, New Delhi and thereafter, IRP was appointed by the order of the NCLT, New Delhi. Counsel submits that the petitioner has no concern whatsoever with the aforesaid sold flat and in-spite of above, the Police is bent upon to apprehend the petitioner in the above criminal case. Counsel submits that the petitioner being the Director of the company-Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited cannot be held vicariously liable for the aforesaid company, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence, which is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency. He further submits that thrice the notices were issued to the petitioner for the purpose of the investigation, but in-spite of receipt of the aforesaid notices, the petitioner has failed to appear before the Investigating Agency for the purpose of his interrogation, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition liable to be rejected. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments raised by the rival sides, this Court is not going to adjudicate the correctness of the allegations levelled in the FIR under its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 of the BNSS. If the contents of the FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence, then certainly the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7063/2025] 5. The petitioner is at liberty to submit a representation along with the aforesaid documents before the Investigating Agency, who would consider the same in accordance with law. 6. Even if the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that any cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, he would issue a notice under Section 35 of the BNSS to the petitioner. 7. If the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that arrest of the petitioner is required for the purpose of investigation, he would issue at least 15 days prior notice to the petitioner before proceeding against him. 8. 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/67