[2025:RJ-JP:44340] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6691/2025 Mohammad Ishan @ Shoukeen S/o Shri Mohammad Waseem, Aged About 33 Years, R/o House No. 3611, Old Tabela, Kumharon Ki Nadi, Police Station Subhash Chowk, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor. 2. Shri Naresh Kumar Bairwa S/o Shri Phool Chand Bairwa, R/o House No. 201, Gali No. 13, Dayanand Nagar, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhawani Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 04/11/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.215/2022 registered with Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur City East under Section 380 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the contents of FIR, a theft took place upon the jewellery shop, though petitioner is not named in the FIR, but the allegation has been levelled against the petitioner that he has received stolen ornaments from the thief. Learned counsel submits that in fact the petitioner purchased the silver through tax invoice and the same was seized by the police, wherein another FIR No.313/2022 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Bhatta Basti under Sections 457, 380 & 411 IPC, but subsequently it was [2025:RJ-JP:44340] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6691/2025] realised that silver so recovered in the said criminal case does not pertain to the aforesaid case, hence, the same has been seized under Section 102 Cr.P.C. by treating the same as doubtful property. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in garb of the instant FIR, now the Police is bent upon to implicate the petitioner as an accused and apprehend him in the present case, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and submits that the contents of FIR reveals that the alleged offences are cognizable, which are required to be investigated by 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 enter into the controversy involved in this petition as to whether the petitioner has received any stolen ornaments or not and as to whether he has purchased the silver through tax invoice. These are the subject matter of the investigation and the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 7. However, the petitioner 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. 8. The Investigating Officer is directed to consider the averments of the same and in case, he comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, then [2025:RJ-JP:44340] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6691/2025] he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS. 9. 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/47