[2026:RJ-JP:749] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7337/2025 1. Vinod Meena S/o Ramji Lal, 2. Vikram Singh Meena S/o Nanga Meena, Both are R/o Kyara Ki Dhani, Paparda, Tehsil Paparda, District Dasusa. ----Accused-Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Suresh Chandra Sharma S/o Gopal Lal Sharma, R/o Khadi Bhandar Road, P.S. Kotwali, District Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/01/2026 1. Instant criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein for quashing FIR No.486/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Dausa for offences punishable under Sections 329(4) and 324(4) of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is dispute between the parties with regard to the ownership of the plot in question. Counsel submits that cross case has also been filed by the petitioners against the complainant and others. Counsel submits that the dispute is essentially civil in nature and does not attract the ingredients of any criminal offence. He further submits that in this regard, the petitioners have already filed a [2026:RJ-JP:749] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7337/2025] civil suit for permanent injunction, which is pending before the Court of Civil Judge, Dausa. Counsel urges that the offences in the impugned FIR are bailable in nature. With these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, prays that this criminal misc. petition may be allowed and the impugned FIR may be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor firmly opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that impugned FIR clearly discloses commission of cognizable offence punishable and as such, invoking of powers under Section 528 of BNSS so as to quash impugned FIR is totally unwarranted. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and scanned the material available on record. 5. A bare perusal of the FIR in the present case reveals serious and specific allegations against the petitioners and Such allegations, by their very nature, necessitate a thorough investigation by the Investigating Agency. The offences are cognizable in nature and thus, the Investigating Agency was fully justified in registering the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 329(4) and 324(4) of BNS. The allegations disclosed in the FIR clearly make out a prima facie case warranting investigation against the petitioners. 6. The question as to whether criminal proceedings are permissible while civil litigation is pending or decided, or whether civil and criminal litigation can go on simultaneously with regard to the same allegations, has been decided by the Hon'ble [2026:RJ-JP:749] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7337/2025] Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that civil and criminal cases can go on simultaneously, if the allegation of criminality exists in the FIR. Reference of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “MS Sheriff versus the State of Madras & Ors.” reported in AIR 1954 SC 397 and in the case of “P Swaroopa Rani versus M Hari Harayan @ Hari Babu” reported in (2008) 5 SCC 765 are relevant. 7 . Invariably, in the case relating to cheating and fraud, there is generally some element of civil nature. It has been well settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments that civil and criminal proceedings can be proceeded simultaneously. Both cases are to be decided by adopting separate yardsticks. It is settled that where the factual foundation for the offence has been laid down in the complaint, the High Court should not hasten to quash criminal proceedings merely on the premise that one of the ingredients have been stated with the details or that the facts narrated reveal the existence of commercial or money transaction between the parties. Criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of a civil nature. It is a settled principle of law that where the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused-petitioner are prima facie made out from a reading of the complaint or the FIR, the criminal proceedings ought not to be interdicted. 8. In wake of discussion made hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case, warranting exercise of inherent powers under Section 528 of BNSS (old Section 482 of [2026:RJ-JP:749] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7337/2025] Cr.P.C.) for quashing the impugned No.486/2025 registered against the petitioner at Police Station Kotwali, District Dausa. 9. Accordingly, the Criminal Misc. Petition stands dismissed. 10. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also dismissed. 11. The observations made hereinabove are only prima facie and shall not prejudice investigation/trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/154