[2025:RJ-JP:46649] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8649/2024 Purushottam Soni Son Of Kailash Chand Soni, Resident Of 178 Mamodiya Ka Mohalla Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Shyoji Son Of Mahadev, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Jailalpura @ Thuni, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : M.Rajveer Singh Gurjar with Ms.Seema Shekhar Mr.Satyam Upman For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 19/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land belonged to Bohri Lal, who sold the subject land to one Mohan Singh, subsequently, the said Mohan Singh sold the same land to the petitioner by way of a registered sale deed. Now, a concocted false F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner by the complainant with vague and vexatious allegations. Counsel submits that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and looking to the nature of the allegations levelled in the present case, it is a purely a civil dispute between the parties, hence, registration of the impugned F.I.R. amounts to abuse of process of law, hence, [2025:RJ-JP:46649] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8649/2024] under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 2. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that in fact the subject land was never sold, only documents were executed without making payment of the sale consideration to the sellers. Counsel submits that when the address of the sellers was verified, they were not found at the place mentioned in the sale deed, hence, under these circumstances, the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. reveal commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant petition filed by the petitioner is liable to rejected. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by the rival sides, this Court cannot adjudge the correctness and genuineness of the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned F.I.R., while exercising its powers contained under Section 528 of the BNSS. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer. 5. The petitioner would be at liberty to file representation/application along-with relevant documents in support thereof before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law. [2025:RJ-JP:46649] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8649/2024] 6. With the aforesaid observation, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /6