HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6720/2025 Sudhir Kumar Katariya S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, R/o Ghasiram Ka Bass, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Yogesh Kumar S/o Vishambher Lal, R/o Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, At Present R/o Makan No. 28, Shreeniwas Nagar, Front Of Road No. 06, Visvakarma Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arun Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/11/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land belonging to the complainant was sold by the Power of Attorney to the erstwhile owner, who sold the same to the petitioner by way of registered sale deed, hence, the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser. Learned counsel submits that an FIR was registered after a lapse of 9 years and without challenging the earlier sale-deed, the complainant cannot lodged an FIR against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. Learned counsel submits that on earlier occasion also, an FIR was registered by the husband of Savitri against the petitioner, which has resulted in final report negative, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. (2 of 2) [CRLMP-6720/2025] 2. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the contents of the 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. 3. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the FIR are subject matter of the investigation and the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. 4. 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. 5. 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 he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS. 6. 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/34