[2025:RJ-JP:49118] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6824/2025 1. Rahish Khan S/o Shri Nazar Khan, R/o 11, Qarim Bangar, Kho- Nagoriyan, Jaipur. 2. Shahid Khan S/o Rahish Khan, R/o 11, Qarim Nagar, Kho- Nagoriyan, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Saiyad Mashkur Ali S/o Late Shri Sakir Ali, R/o House No. 653, Saiyyad Manzil, Near Lucky Paint House, Kishanpole Bazar, P.s. Kotwali, District Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP Mr. Om Prakash Matwa, SHO, P.S. Kho Nagoriyan (IO) JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/12/2025 1. By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a prayer has made for quashing of the impugned FIR No.535/2025 registered with Police Station Kho Nagoriyan, District Jaipur City (East) under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) BNS, 2023. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the subject land bearing plot No.9 and 10 were allotted to one Sabir, who sold the same to Imran and Anir by way of an Agreement to Sell dated 31.12.2022. Counsel submits that the petitioners have [2025:RJ-JP:49118] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6824/2025] no concern whatsoever with the subject land, but even then, the Police has implicated the petitioners as accused in the instant case on the basis of some documents/agreement, wherein, it has been shown that the petitioners have purchased the subject land from Imran and Anis. In fact, they have never purchased the subject land from them. Counsel submits that the subject land is a facility area and when steps were taken by the sellers to sell this land, the petitioner No.1 filed a civil suit before the competent Civil Court for restraining the sellers from selling the subject land to anyone. Counsel submit that under these circumstances, no case is made out against the petitioners to proceed against them in the impugned FIR. In support of his contentions, counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim and Ors. vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in 2010 Crl. L.J. 2223. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the allegations levelled in the FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence, and a fact has come up during the course of investigation that in-fact the purchasers i.e. Imran and Anis have executed an agreement with Sabir for this purchase of the subject land on 31.12.2022. However, the purchasers did not pay the entire consideration amount and thereafter, the same subject land was sold to the petitioners on 21.01.2024 to create doubt/dispute upon the subject land. Counsel submits that [2025:RJ-JP:49118] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6824/2025] the petitioners are also involved with the co-accused persons. Hence, under these circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence of this Court. Lastly, he argued that a photocopy of the agreement to sell the subject land by the accused Imran and Anis in favour of the petitioner is there. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Whether the petitioners have entered into an agreement with the Imran and Anis or not; and whether the Imran and Anis have not paid the remaining sale consideration amount to the original owner Sabir or not; and whether any agreement has been executed by Imran and Anis in favour of the petitioners or not? All these questions are disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 of the BNSS. 6. The allegations levelled in the FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence, hence the matter is required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. 7. The petitioners would be at liberty to file appropriate representation along with relevant documents in support thereof before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. 8. If during the course of investigation involvement of the petitioners is found to be proved by the Investigating Officer, he shall issue at least 15 days prior notice under Section 35 of the BNSS. [2025:RJ-JP:49118] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6824/2025] 9. 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/31