[2026:RJ-JP:13155] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.95/2019 Anuj Shrivastav S/o Late Shri Narendra Shrivastav, Proprietor Radhika Construction, R/o 405, Anchor Mall, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Raj., Present Office Address 34/462 C Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sunder Singh Gehlot S/o Shri Ramchandra Gehlot, R/o Plot No.B-100, Hanuman Mandir Ke Samne Vali Gali, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Raj. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prashant Kumar Dubey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Giriraj P. Sharma Ms. Sneha Gulati Ms. Nikita Sharma Ms. Shruti Chandgothia JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 28/03/2026 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.0276/2018 registered with the Police Station Murlipura, District Jaipur (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR against the petitioner by the complainant, certain amount was received by the petitioner from the complainant for sale of a flat. Learned counsel submits [2026:RJ-JP:13155] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-95/2019] that there was no question of receiving any amount for purpose of sale for the said flat on the subject land, as the collaboration agreement with the owner of the property itself was done in the year 2017, while part amount was received by the petitioner from the complainant in the month of September, 2016. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid amount was received by the petitioner for the purpose of business transactions, for which blank cheques have already been given to the complainant. Hence, under these circumstances, allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR are baseless, false and fabricated, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that a legal notice with regard to the said business transactions was issued by the petitioner, after registration of the impugned FIR. Learned counsel submits that all these facts cannot be looked into by this Court, at this stage, as the matter is still at the investigation stage, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant criminal misc. petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. The allegations levelled in the impugned FIR reveals commission of cognizable offence. The correctness of the allegations cannot be examined, adjudicated and adjudged by this Court while exercising inherent jurisdiction contained under [2026:RJ-JP:13155] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-95/2019] Section 482 Cr.P.C. certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is at liberty to bring all these facts into the notice of the Investigating Officer by way of filing representation along-with documents in support thereof. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer is expected to consider the same within a period of 15 days and in case, he comes to the conclusion that any cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner then he would issue notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C. to the petitioner and would submit the result/conclusion of the investigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C. strictly in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/18