Disposed¶19

Sudhir Kumar Katariya S/O Shri Bhagwan Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Nov 2025CRLMP/6720/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused under inherent jurisdiction; Section 528 BNSS; Section 35 BNSS mandatory provisions; cognizable offence investigation; FIR after 9 years; bonafide purchaser; registered sale deed; earlier FIR negative final report; representation to Investigating Officer; Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6720/2025 (CRLMP-6720/2025); disposed on 01/11/2025.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; petitioner given liberty to file a representation before the Investigating Officer, who is to consider it strictly in accordance with law and, if a cognizable offence is made out, ensure compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 35 BNSS; stay application and all pending applications also stand disposed of. ¶19

Sudhir Kumar Katariya S/O Shri Bhagwan Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner can be quashed by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

¶16

Court's answer

The allegations made in the FIR are subject matter of the investigation and the same cannot be quashed by this Court under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.

¶16

Ratio / Principle

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

¶17

Key takeaways

If the Investigating Officer concludes that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the BNSS.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. (order dated 01/11/2025): Counsel for the petitioner, contending he was a bonafide purchaser of the subject land via a registered sale deed following a sale by Power of Attorney, and noting the FIR was registered after 9 years and an earlier FIR had ended in a negative final report, sought quashing of the FIR; the Public Prosecutor opposed, submitting the alleged offences were cognizable and required investigation. The Court held the allegations in the FIR are a subject matter of investigation and cannot be quashed under its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS; granted the petitioner liberty to approach the Investigating Officer with a representation and directed that, if a cognizable offence is made out, the mandatory provisions of Section 35 of the BNSS be complied with. The petition, stay application and pending applications stand disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6720/2025

¶3

Sudhir Kumar Katariya S/o Shri Bhagwan Singh, R/o Ghasiram Ka Bass, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Yogesh Kumar S/o Vishambher Lal, R/o Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu, At Present R/o Makan No. 28, Shreeniwas Nagar, Front Of Road No. 06, Visvakarma Jaipur (Rajasthan).

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Arun	Singh Shekhawat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit	Punia,PP

¶9

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶10

Order

¶11

01/11/2025

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject land belonging to the complainant was sold by the Power of Attorney to the erstwhile owner, who sold the same to the petitioner by way of registered sale deed, hence, the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser. Learned counsel submits that an FIR was registered after a lapse of 9 years and without challenging the earlier sale-deed, the complainant cannot lodged an FIR against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. Learned counsel submits that on earlier occasion also, an FIR was registered by the husband of Savitri against the petitioner, which has resulted in final report negative, hence, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶13

[CRLMP-6720/2025]

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the contents of the FIR reveals that the alleged offences are cognizable, which are required to be investigated by the Investigating Agency, hence, interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶21

Karan/34

Sudhir Kumar Katariya S/O Shri Bhagwan Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar Katariya S/O Shri Bhagwan Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shubham Gupta S/O Kamal Chand Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Kumar Prajapat S/O Satyanarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Sawai Singh S/O Shri Ugamdan Ratnu, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinish Saini S/O Shri Paramjeet Singh, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jahid Ali Son of Maksud Ali, Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Jat S/O Shri Ramchandra Jat Vs State of Rajasthan