Roshni Sawalni Wife of Shri Ghanshyam Sawlani, Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:1618]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 79/2025

¶4

Roshni Sawalni Wife Of Shri Ghanshyam Sawlani, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 16,guru Govind Singh Colony, Purohit Pada, Brahmpuri, Jaipur- 302002.

¶5

Geeta Sindhi Wife Of Mukesh Gurnani, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 4, 115/g Ram Colony, Mangodiwalon Ki Bagichi, Brahmpuri, Jaipur- 302002.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶9

Nisha Jethwani Wife Of Late Shri Harish Kumar Sindhi, Daughter Of Shri Notan Das Sejwani, Resident Of 17-B, Chandra Nagar, Gurjar Ghati, Amer Road, P.s. Brahmpuri, Jaipur . Presently Residing At 178, Near Ashoka Talkies, Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8579/2024

¶13

Hemant Kumar Jethwani Son Of Late Shri Tek Chand Jethwani, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of 17-B, Chandra Nagar, Gurjar Ghati, Amer Road, P.s. Brahmpuri, Jaipur.

¶14

Smt. Jimmi Bai Wife Of Late Shri Tek Chand Jethwani, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of 17-B, Chandra Nagar, Gurjar Ghati, Amer Road, P.s. Brahmpuri, Jaipur.

¶15

----Petitioners

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶18

Nisha Jethwani Wife Of Late Shri Harish Kumar Sindhi, Daughter Of Shri Notan Das Sejwani, Resident Of 17-B, Chandra Nagar, Gurjar Ghati, Amer Road, P.S. Brahmpuri, Jaipur. Presently Residing At 178, Near Ashoka Talkies, Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Devesh Tripathi

[2025:RJ-JP:1618]

[CRLMP-79/2025]

(2 of 3)

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP For Complainant(s) Mr.Mukesh Duri

¶25

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶26

Order

¶27

10/01/2025

¶28

The instant petition has been preferred against the F.I.R. No.433/2024 registered at the Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur City (North) for the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of I.P.C.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on account of civil dispute between the families, the instant F.I.R. with false and vague allegations have been levelled. Counsel submits that a civil dispute cannot be settled by lodging F.I.R. and by making unnecessary pressure upon the petitioners, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶30

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Public Prosecutor and perused the contents of the FIR.

¶32

After going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. disclose that the alleged offence is cognizable and the matter requires investigation. This Court while exercising the discretionary powers contained under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. is not supposed to make a roving/fishing inquiry and to embark upon a probe to ascertain the genuineness

[2025:RJ-JP:1618]

[CRLMP-79/2025]

(3 of 3)

and reliability of the allegations mentioned in the FIR. Certainly, it would be a task to be undertaken by the Investigating Officer, therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the course of investigation.

¶37

The petitioner may file a detailed/ comprehensive representation along-with the documents before the Investigating Officer.

¶38

The Investigating Officer is directed to consider the averments of the same in the investigation and in case, the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners then, he shall ensure the compliance of the mandatory provisions contained under Section 35 of the B.N.S.S.

¶39

The Investigation Officer is further directed to issue at least 15 days advance notice to the petitioners, in case, he comes to the conclusion that custodial arrest of the petitioners is required.

¶40

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.

¶41

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶42

Aayush Sharma /35 & 36

Roshni Sawalni Wife of Shri Ghanshyam Sawlani, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roshni Sawalni Wife of Shri Ghanshyam Sawlani, 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

Smt. Tulsa D/O Shri Hariram, Wife of Shri Nitish Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Daulat S/O Nanulal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Aadil Choudhary S/O Shri Aalam Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Yogesh Attray S/O Shri A.N. Shastri Vs State of Rajasthan

Prakash Gupta S/O Pyare Lal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramashankar Sharma S/O Sitaram Sharma B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan