Disposed

Bheem Singh Shekhawat Son of Jaswant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Nov 2025CRLMP/1613/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court vacated a prior interim order granting relief to the petitioner due to non-compliance with directions to deposit funds. The Court declined to quash the FIR alleging cheating and forgery in a land transaction, holding that if the FIR reveals a cognizable offence, investigation is warranted. The petitioner was permitted to file a representation before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Interim order vacated; petition disposed of without quashing the FIR.

Bheem Singh Shekhawat Son of Jaswant Singh Vs State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1613/2023

¶3

Bheem Singh Shekhawat Son Of Jaswant Singh, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 171, Shakti Nagar, Opposite Heerapura Power House, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶7

Mohanlal Bunkar Son Of Late Shri Chetram Bunkar, Resident Of 202, Kundan Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Prashant Sharma

¶10

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

17/11/2025

¶13

By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR No.36/2023 registered with Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 & 471 IPC.

¶14

The contents of the instant criminal misc. petition indicate that the petitioner along-with other persons purchased the subject land, for which an agreement was executed and the amount was paid to the Khatedar, but the khatedar did not execute the registered sale-deed for which an FIR No.555/2018 was lodged with the Police Station Chaksu, District Jaipur City (South) against the khatedar. In the meantime, the petitioner sold the subject land to the complainant for a sum of Rs.5,90,000/-.

¶15

[CRLMP-1613/2023]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

It has been alleged by the complainant that there existed no agreement relating to the land in question in favour of the petitioner on 05.05.2016, when the first installment was paid to the petitioner by the complainant. In fact the agreement was executed on 30.09.2016, he was not in a possession of the clear title of the subject land in his favour, hence, the petitioner has committed cheating upon the complainant.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant submitted that contents of the FIR reveals commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted for quashing the proceedings arising out of the impugned FIR.

¶19

No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Vide order dated 12.04.2023, the petitioner made a submission before this Court that he is ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the respondent by way of the demand draft and relying upon such submission by counsel for the petitioner, this Court passed an interim order in favour of the petitioner.

¶20

The order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court indicates that inspite of passing of more than two and a half years, the petitioner did not deposit the aforesaid amount in the name of the respondent No.2.

¶21

Considering the above, the interim order dated 12.04.2023 was vacated by this Court.

¶22

It has been apprised at Bar by Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant that inspite of vacation of the interim

¶23

[CRLMP-1613/2023]

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

order, the Investigating Officer is not proceeding with the investigation, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not going to adjudge the correctness of allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR. If the contents of the FIR reveal commission of any congnizable offence, then the same is required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer. 10. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Investigating Officer by way of filing a representation, who is directed to consider the averments of the same and in case, he comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, then he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶26

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶27

Karan/107

Bheem Singh Shekhawat Son of Jaswant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheem Singh Shekhawat Son of Jaswant Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Chand Sharma S/O Late Phool Chand, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shanno @ Ajra Naaz W/O Jakir Hussain, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shashikant S/O Mohanlal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mustufa Ali S/O Late Sultan Mirza Vs Jaipur Development Autority

Smt. Shanti Devi W/O Late Shri Ramniwas Khati, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Rajan S/O Shri Jainarayan, Vs State of Rajasthan