[2025:RJ-JP:48809] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6816/2025 Ritesh Son Of Shri Umashankar Dubey, Resident Of Plot No. 47, Near Nirman Nagar, Parvati Nagar Extension, Jaipur ( Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Puneet Bhardwaj Son Of Shri Ashok Bhardwaj, Resident Of D-11, Ajmer Road, Vidhyut Nagar, Chitrakoot, Jaipur West ( Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhaskar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. C.S. Sinha JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/12/2025 1. By way of filing the instant petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of the impugned FIR No.94/2024 registered with Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an agreement to sell was executed by the petitioner in favour of the complainant with regard to sale of the subject land. Counsel submits that when the registered sale deed could not be executed, the cheques for the consideration amount were issued in favour of the complainant for payment, however instead of presenting those cheques seeking encashment of [2025:RJ-JP:48809] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6816/2025] the amount, the impugned FIR has been registered against the petitioner with vague allegations and subsequent to registration of the impugned FIR, the petitioner has stopped the payment of the aforesaid cheques. Hence, the complainant has submitted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. Counsel submits that once the complainant has availed the remedy of filing a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for recovery of the aforesaid amount, no question of registration of the impugned FIR arises and registration of the impugned FIR amounts to gross abuse of process of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed and set-aside. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence by the petitioner and the same are required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency, hence interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. This Court while exercising its jurisdiction contained under Section 528 of the BNSS cannot adjudge the correctness and genuineness of the allegations levelled in the FIR. If the allegations levelled in the FIR reveal commission of [2025:RJ-JP:48809] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6816/2025] cognizable offence, then certainly, the matter is required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency. 7. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate representation along with relevant documents in support thereof before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. 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/42