[2026:RJ-JP:31749] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4092/2018 CNR: RJHC020688912018 | URN: CRLMP / 6261U / 2018 Vikas Jain S/o Shri Nemi Chand Jain, Aged About 37 Years, R/o A-93, Talwandi Kota, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Jaipur 2. Dr. Chandra Prakash S/o Shri Shrinath Vijay, R/o 4W5, Talwandi Kota, Raj. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5414/2018 CNR: RJHC020857172018 | URN: CRLMP / 8271U / 2018 Dr Chandra Prakash Vijay S/o Shri Shreenath Vijay, R/o 4 W 5, Talwandi, Kota. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp, Rajasthan. 2. Vikas Jain S/o Late Shri Nemi Chand Jain, R/o A-93, Near Jain Mandir, Talwandi, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kunal Jaiman For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Sudhir Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 12/08/2026 1. S.B. Criminal Misc. petition No. 4092/2018 is filed by Vikas Jain for quashing of FIR No. 306/2018 registered at P.S. R.K. Puram, District Kota for offence under Section 420 and 406 IPC. [2026:RJ-JP:31749] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-4092/2018] 2. Misc. petition No. 5414/2018 is filed by Dr. Chandra Prakash Vijay for quashing of FIR No. 353/2018, registered at P.S. R.K. Puram, District Kota for offence under Section 420 and 406 IPC. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that since the investigation in both the matters have been stayed by this Hon’ble Court, therefore, no further progress has been achieved in the investigation. 4. On consideration of arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it has come to the notice that a partnership firm is formed by Dr. Chandra Prakash Vijay who is creator of HUF with his two sons Abhijeet Vijay and Arihant Vijay in the name of Arihant Stone Crushers. In year 2010 Vikas Jain was inducted as partner, thereafter, on 05.05.2017, Chandra Prakash Vijay has sought retirement from the firm transfering his share to his two sons. At the time of retirement of Chandra Prakash Vijay, a dispute arose between Vikas jain and other partners and both the parties have lodged FIR against each other and these FIR are challenged by both the parties with prayer for quashing. The matters are tagged together and we are deciding these matters with a common order. 5. The material submitted by learned counsels further indicate that on 26.04.2024, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed Arbitration Application No. 11/2023 under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed Shri Kunj Bihari Katta as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 6. Pursuant to said order, the arbitration award is passed by sole arbitrator on 29.10.2024 and this award has been challenged [2026:RJ-JP:31749] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-4092/2018] by sons of Chandra Prakash Vijay namely Abhijeet Vijay and Arihant Vijay. The challenge under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is pending before the Commercial Court, Kota 7. Having considered the submissions and also the contents of FIR, it has come to the notice that there was a commercial and business dispute between the parties, arising out of the subsequent business events and the parties have approached the police to lodge criminal case against each other. 8. Having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the judgment in the case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, certain illustrative categories were laid down for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, and the same are reproduced as under: (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; [2026:RJ-JP:31749] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-4092/2018] (c) where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or 'complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. [2026:RJ-JP:31749] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-4092/2018] 9. These categories were considered in the case of Anukul Singh vs. State of U.P. & Another, 2025 INSC 1153, wherein it was held that the categories in Bhajan Lal (supra) are illustrative and not exhaustive, but they provide guiding principles to balance two competing considerations: (a) preventing abuse of the process of law; and (b) ensuring that proceedings are not stuffled at the threshold where disputed questions of fact are involved. 10. Having considered the aforesaid, the matter is purely of a civil nature and arising out of business transactions, and there was no occasion for the parties to file criminal case against each other. The registration of FIR by each of the parties and continuance of investigation is abuse of process of law, hence the misc. petitions are liable to be allowed. 11. In view of aforesaid, both the misc. petitions under section 482 of Cr.P.C. are hereby allowed and FIR No. 306/2018 and FIR No. 353/2018 registered at P.S. R.K. Puram, District Kota and all consequential proceedings arising out of said FIRs are quashed and set aside. 12. Misc. application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Stay application also disposed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J 15-16/ANAND