[2026:RJ-JP:10403] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2486/2024 Dharam Chand Saini S/o Shri Ganga Ram Saini, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Plot No. A-13, 6-D, Engineers Colony, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Smt. Bhanwari Devi W/o Shri Laduram, Resident Of House No. 6-D, Engineers Colony P.s. Mansarovar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Chandra Sharma, with Mr. Kritesh Oswal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/03/2026 1. Instant Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 482 read with Section 483 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner for quashing of FIR No.1229/2023 registered at Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City (South) for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned FIR is false and same has been lodged with a delay of about three years. Counsel submits that a bare perusal of the impugned FIR would clearly reveal that the dispute between the parties is purely civil and personal in nature and has been given a colour of criminality only with an ulterior motive. It is further contended that even if the allegations contained in the FIR are [2026:RJ-JP:10403] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2486/2024] taken at its face value and accepted in its entirety, no ingredients of any cognizable criminal offence are made out against the present petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner had never entered into any transaction with the complainant with regard to the sale of any property or issuance of any patta in his favour. The petitioner neither offered any plot to the complainant nor received any amount from him, as alleged in the FIR. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to a gross abuse of the process of law. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was neither President or Secretary of the Shiva Co-operative Housing Society at the time of alleged incident, thus, the averments made in the FIR are ex facie false. The present FIR has been lodged solely with the motive to extort money from the petitioner. Thus, the impugned FIR may be quashed being false and concocted. Counsel has relied upon the judgment dated 16.03.2018 passed by this Court in the case of Virendra Meena versus State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.192/2010. 3. Learned State Counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender as apart from this, many other cases have been registered against him. 4. In compliance with the directions of this Court, learned State Counsel places on record factual report dated 13.01.2026 received from Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur (South). According to the factual report, a total of 59 criminal cases have been registered against petitioner Dharam Chand Saini, co-accused Gopal Ram [2026:RJ-JP:10403] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2486/2024] Saini & Jamnaram Saini and against the aforesaid Shiva Co- operative Housing Society. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in most of the cases, negative final report has been filed. 6. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that the contents of FIR discloses commission of cognizable offences against the petitioner. The factual report also shows that there are ample evidence against the petitioner for commission of the alleged offences. The petitioner was the then President/Secretary of the Shiva Cooperative Housing Society and co-accused persons namely Gopal Ram Saini & Jamnaram Saini are relatives of the petitioner and they in connivance with each other, committed forgery with number of persons. Thus, the case of the present petitioner is not covered by the guidelines prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. versus Choudhary Bhajan Lal & Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 604. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR are required to be investigated by the Investigation Agency. Thus, this Court does not find a good ground to quash the FIR. 9. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition stands dismissed. 10. The stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki/8