Irshad Ali S/O Shri Manjoor Ali, Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:20438]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3033/2022

¶4

Irshad Ali S/o Shri Manjoor Ali, Resident Of House No. 16A, Behind Gumanpura Police Station, Kota (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Girish Yogi S/o Shri Durgashankar Yogi, Resident Of House No. 2/237, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Kota, At Present Resident Of 1116, Veevanta Apartment Shrinathpuram A, Kota (Rajasthan).

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Dharmendra Kumar for Kapil Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Narendra Singh Dhakar, PP
	Mr.	Bhim Singh Meena

¶10

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

14/05/2026

¶13

By way of filing the instant criminal misc, petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.25/2022, registered with Police Station RK Puram, District Kota City for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 IPC. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the instant case is a case of purely civil nature and as per the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR by the complainant, certain sum of money was given by him to the petitioner for the purpose of partnership in the mining lease of the petitioner and an agreement was executed for this purpose. Counsel submits that it is the case of the complainant that some

[2026:RJ-JP:20438]

[CRLMP-3033/2022]

(2 of 3)

of the amount was repaid by the petitioner, however, the remainder of the amount was not paid. When the balance amount was not paid and a cheque was issued for the said purpose, the impugned FIR has been lodged with the motive to recover the balance amount. Counsel submits that a criminal case cannot be lodged for the purpose of recovery of any amount and if at all, the petitioner has any grievance, he can file a civil suit. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

¶18

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the prayer and submitted that mining lease issued in favour of the petitioner was suspended by the Additional Director (Mines), Kota, vide order dated 17.4.2018 and this fact was within the knowledge of the petitioner and the same was not disclosed to the complainant when the agreement was executed in the year 2021 i.e. on 21.02.2021. Hence, the offence of cheating has been committed by the petitioner with the complainant.

¶19

Public Prosecutor further submits that a prima facie case has been found against the petitioner during the course of investigation. Hence, interference of this court is not warranted. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and peruse the material available on the record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant and looking to the fact that the mining lease of the petitioner was suspended by the authorities in the year 2018 and an agreement was executed between the parties in the year 2021 for the purpose of partnership in the mining activities and as part

[2026:RJ-JP:20438]

[CRLMP-3033/2022]

(3 of 3)

of the agreement certain amount was paid to the petitioner, and while some part of the same was repaid, the remainder was retained, this Court cannot examine the correctness of the allegations levelled in the impugned FIR.

¶24

As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, a cognizable offence is made out. This court is not going to adjudge the correctness of the allegations by conducting a roving and fishing inquiry.

¶25

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant misc. petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit appropriate representation before the Investigating Officer.

¶26

In case, such representation is submitted by the petitioner, the Investigating Officer would consider the same and submit the conclusion report of investigation under section 173 Cr.P.C., before the concerned Court.

¶27

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.

¶28

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶29

KuD/46

Irshad Ali S/O Shri Manjoor Ali, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irshad Ali S/O Shri Manjoor Ali, 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

Sonu Ram Pachauri S/O Late Shri Shibbo, Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Sharma S/O Shri R K Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Kumar Meena Son of Shri Bhanwar Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Hakimuddin S/O Rehmat Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dharmraj @ Deepu S/O Shri Sitaram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Victim Vs State of Rajasthan