[2025:RJ-JP:24788] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 687/2024 Naveen Goyal Son of Prakash Chand Goyal, Resident Of Plot No. 157, Vinayak Vihar, Golyawas, Mansarowar, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Babulal Yadav Son Of Shri Ramsahay, Resident Of Meenawala Tehsil And District Jaipur Presently Residing At Kheda Hanumanji Madhorajpura Police Station Madhorajpura District Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Banwari Lal Sharma Mr. Namonarayan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP Mr. Ramdhan Choudhary for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 04/07/2025 1. Petitioner has approached this Court in order to invoke inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS with a prayer to quash and set-aside the investigation qua the petitioner in FIR No. 81/2023 registered at Police Station Madhorajpura, District Jaipur (gramin). 2. Facts of the case are that one FIR No.81/2023 was lodged by complainant Babulal Yadav levelling allegations with regard to fabricating one Power of Attorney and selling the land pursuant to such Power of Attorney. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser as he had purchased land bearing Khasra No. 1588 ad-measuring 4 Bighas 6 Biswa and Khasra No. 1589 measuring 3 Biswas, Khasra No. [2025:RJ-JP:24788] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-687/2024] 1783/1 measuring 8 Bighas 6 Biswa, total measuring 12 Bighas 15 Biswas from Vinod Kumawat, who happened to be Power of Attorney Holder vide registered sale deed dated 04.07.2022, which is duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Jaipur. Petitioner has purchased the land after making payment of valuable sale consideration and is in occupation of the land. He has not committed any forgery, nor has he ever been in contact of respondent-complainant. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also indicate that pursuant to the FIR, investigation was conducted by the Station House Officer Madhorajpura, District Jaipur (gramin) in which after investigation, it has been observed that the petitioner as well as respondent-complainant had no contact whatsoever nor have ever worked together. It has also been observed by the Investigating Officer that the petitioner has not committed any cheating with the complainant. 4. Learned counsel would submit that after making aforesaid observations, in the result of investigation, although charge-sheet has been filed against the other accused persons, yet instead of exonerating the petitioner, charge-sheet has been kept pending against him under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., which is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner, as still police authorities are harassing the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the petition filed by the petitioner by stating that the petitioner is actively involved in committing offence alleged in the FIR. Merely on account of any observation, without conducting proper investigation from the petitioner and keeping the [2025:RJ-JP:24788] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-687/2024] investigation pending against him, is not conclusive proof of the fact that the petitioner is innocent in the matter. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor also opposed the criminal misc. Petition. 7. I have examined the record and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Although it is not desirable to make any comments on merits at this stage, yet prima facia, it would reveal that the petitioner does not have to prove the veracity of Power of Attorney as he is merely the beneficiary and has purchased the land by way of agreement dated 06.07.2022 and he has been falsely implicated as an accused. Charge-sheet has although been filed against other accused, yet it has been kept pending against the petitioner- accused under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., which reveals that investigation is still pending against the petitioner. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to direct the petitioner to make a representation within a period of Ten days from today before the Investigating Officer along with all the documents, which the petitioner intends to rely upon. 10. After receiving such representation, the Investigating Officer shall carry out and complete investigation against the petitioner without being influenced by any observation made in the instant order. 11. In case any offence is found to be made out against the petitioner, then before taking any adverse action, notice of 14 days shall be served upon the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:24788] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-687/2024] 12. In the light of the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J pcg/181