Dismissed

Sitaram Jat S/O Ramdhan Jat, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC11 Nov 2025CRLMP/6697/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging ownership dispute over property. The Court rejected the prayer, holding allegations require police investigation under Section 528 BNSS, 2023. Petitioners directed to approach IO; arrest precluded without notice under Section 35 BNSS, 2023.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing of FIR allowed and disposed of. Petitioners to approach Investigating Officer. Arrest prior to notice prohibited under Section 35 BNSS, 2023.

Sitaram Jat S/O Ramdhan Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6697/2025

¶3

Sitaram Jat S/o Ramdhan Jat, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Plot No. 14-A, Bhomiya Nagar, Joshi Marg, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Presently Residing At Plot No. 129, Avadhpuri, Joshi Marg, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

¶4

Jyoti Kanwar W/o Vikram Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Pardoli Badi, Via Phaglava, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar.

¶5

Nanu Ram Ranva S/o Ranva, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Bhagwatpura, Dhinda, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶9

Manisha Jangid W/o Ashok Kumar Jangid, R/o Khatiyon Ka Mohalla, Govindpura, Kardhani, Jaipur (West), Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta-PP

¶12

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order

¶13

11/11/2025

¶14

By way of filing this misc. petition, a prayer has been made for quashing the impugned FIR No. 1021/2025, registered with Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur (West).

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that initially the subject land was allotted to one Mohd. Sadik who sold the same to Hanuman Prasad and after death of Hanuman Prasad, his wife sold the subject land to the petitioners by way of registered sale deed dated 28.06.2024. Counsel submits that the complainant has

¶16

[CRLMP-6697/2025]

¶17

(2 of 2)

¶18

no concern whatsoever with the subject land but on the basis of the some other patta issued by the society, he is claiming ownership of the subject land without any basis. Counsel submits that the petitioners are bona fide purchasers of the subject land and he has no concern whatsoever with the allegations levelled in the FIR, hence interference of this Court is warranted.

¶19

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the allegation levelled in the FIR reveals the commission of a cognizable offence and the same is required to be investigated by the police during the course of investigation, hence interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶20

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that allegations made in the FIR are subject matter of investigation and the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 528 BNSS, 2023.

¶21

The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 may file a representation before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the averments of the same and in case, the Investigating Officer comes to a conclusion that cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, then before arresting the petitioners, he shall ensure the compliance of the Section 35 of the B.N.S.S. by issuing notice to the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations, the misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of.

¶23

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶24

Ashu/34

Sitaram Jat S/O Ramdhan Jat, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Jat S/O Ramdhan Jat, 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

Kailash Chand Jain S/O Shri Phool Chand Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamal Singh Son of Ramkhiladi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanny Taneja S/O Shri Rajkumar Taneja, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitendra @ Jeetu S/O Late Shri Ramlal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Gajraj Singh S/O Shri Kishanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Prashant Kumar S/O Shriniwas Vs the State of Rajasthan