Dismissed

Rahul Vashishth S/O Shri Manoj Vashishth, v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Nov 2025CRLMP/4814/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court held that allegations of cheating regarding a property sale require police investigation. The court refused to quash the FIR under inherent jurisdiction, directing the Investigating Officer to examine the complaint and comply with mandatory investigation provisions.

What did the court decide?

The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. The Investigating Officer is directed to consider the averments and comply with mandatory provisions if an offense is made out.

Rahul Vashishth S/O Shri Manoj Vashishth, Vs the… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.4814/2025

¶3

Rahul Vashishth S/o Shri Manoj Vashishth, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Shiv Colony, Tehsil Hindaun, Karauli, Hindaun, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Kavita W/o Shri Vedprakash Sharma, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Plot No. 1, F55, Sector 1, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anshuman Saxena
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Punia, PP
	Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni
	Mr. Ram Mohan Sharma

¶9

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

06/11/2025

¶12

By way of filing this criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.207/2025 registered with Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Jaipur (East) for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2) & 61(2) of BNS, 2023.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land belongs to Prem Lata, who sold the same by way of registered sale-deed to the petitioner on 19.01.2024, hence the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser. Learned counsel submits that in fact the subject land was never sold to the complainant and no agreement to sell was ever executed and infact the stamp purchased by the original owner of the land has been mis-used by the complainant. Had it been a case of agreement to sell of the sub-

¶14

[CRLMP-4814/2025]

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

ject land by the original owner Prem Lata in favour of the complainant, she would have filed a suit for specific performance or she would have assailed the validity of the registered sale-deed executed in favour of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the FIR has been registered after 14 years of the execution of the alleged sale-deed, which was alleged to have been executed on 20.01.2011. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the allegations levelled in the FIR are baseless and incorrect and the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed.

¶17

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant oppose the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that the contents of FIR reveal commission of cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the Police. They further submit that the subject land was initially sold by the original owner-Prem Lata to the complainant by way of an agreement to sell on 20.01.2011. Learned counsel submits that, since the original owner and the complainant are sister-in-laws, hence, the because of the family relations, no proceedings were initiated for execution of registered sale-deed. Learned counsel submits that now the original owner is in connivance with the petitioner and other accused persons, who have sold the subject land by causing cheating with the complainant, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the misc. petition is liable to be rejected. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the allegations made in the FIR are subject matter of the investigation and the same cannot be

¶18

[CRLMP-4814/2025]

¶19

(3 of 3)

¶20

quashed by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

¶21

However, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Investigating Officer by way of filing a representation, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶22

The Investigating Officer 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶25

Karan/30

Rahul Vashishth S/O Shri Manoj Vashishth, v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Vashishth S/O Shri Manoj Vashishth, v. the 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

Imran S/O Anwar Khan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Gagan Mitra S/O Premprakash Mitra, Vs Rajesh Mendiratta, S/O Sh. Mohan Lal Mendiratta

Mahendra Singh Mehta S/O Shri Late Shri Laxmi Chan Mehta, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sharwan Kumar Agarwal ( Hisaria) Vs State of Rajasthan

Roop Singh S/O Shri Ramkhiladi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Saini S/O Let Gaarsi Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan