[2026:RJ-JP:28524] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7476/2024 CNR: RJHC020943292024 | URN: CRLMP / 15252U / 2024 1. Smt. Mamta Rathor W/o Shri Naresh Rathore, R/o 568-A, Talwandi, Kota (Raj). 2. Naresh Rathor S/o Shri Om Prakash Rathore, R/o 568-A, Talwandi, Kota (Raj). ----Accused-Petitioners Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor. 2. The Superintendent of Police, Kota City, Kota. 3. The S.H.O. Police Station R.k. Puram, Kota City. 4. Vikas Jain S/o Shri Nemichand Jain, aged about 43 Years, R/o 93A, Talwandi, Kota (Raj). ----Complainant-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Amitosh Pareek with Mr.Ashish Sharma for Mr.Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr.N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr.Anirudh Singh Mr.Vikas Jain Mr.Lokendra Paliwal, I.O. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/07/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned F.I.R. No.192/2024, registered at the Police Station R.K. Puram, District Kota City for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s VNV Group was constituted by nine partners including the petitioners. Counsel submits that the rest of the eight partners executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner No.2-Naresh Rathor to sell and [2026:RJ-JP:28524] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7476/2024] alienate the subject property belonging to the aforesaid partnership firm. Counsel submits that four partners, namely, Vikas Jain, Mohani Devi Jain, Vijay Kumar Sharma and Dinesh Kumar Sanadhya withdrew their power of attorney, but the power of attorney executed by the rest of the partners is still in existence and on the basis of the same, certain flats from their share were sold by the petitioner No.2. Counsel submits that a partnership dispute has occurred between the partners and in terms of the clause 11 for settlement of dispute under the said partnership agreement, the matter has been referred to the Arbitrator. Counsel submits that the dispute raised by the complainant and other partners is purely of civil nature to which colour of criminal case has been given. Counsel submits that even the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory is not specific and conclusive. Hence, a prayer has been made to quash the entire proceedings arising out of the impugned F.I.R. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that a dispute occurred between the partners and after the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, the petitioner has forged the signature of one of the partners, i.e., Vikas Jain and further applied for electricity connection for the subject property. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has inducted himself as an owner of the subject property and he had let out various flats to tenants and already collected rent from them as well. Counsel submits that the aforesaid act of the petitioner amounts to an offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B IPC for which the impugned F.I.R. has been registered, hence, interference of [2026:RJ-JP:28524] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7476/2024] this Court is not warranted and the instant petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Perusal of the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. reveals commission of cognizable offence and the document containing the alleged forged signatures of the complainant in order to obtain the electricity connection was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the Forensic Science Laboratory report reveals that the aforesaid documents have not been signed by the partner-Vikas Jain. However, the correctness of the allegations cannot be examined, adjudicated and adjudged by this Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer. 6. Looking to the fact that the matter is still at investigating stage, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the Investigation Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance with law and submit the conclusion report of investigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C., before the concerned Court on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of investigation. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma/90