Dismissed

Rameshwar S/O Shri Chothu, B/C Bagra Brahmin v. Moolchand Sharma S/O Shri Phoolchand Sharma

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2026CRLMP/461/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan disposed of two petitions seeking quashing of an FIR regarding land dispute. Court held investigation is for police, held Jaipur Development Authority as public owner, and allowed investigation without arrest. Petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of. Investigation to continue without arrest. JDA to submit report on land status.

Rameshwar S/O Shri Chothu, B/C Bagra Brahmin Vs… — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:26271]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.7897/2018

¶4

URN: CRLMP / 12373U / 2018

¶5

Badri Narayan Sharma S/o Shri Chothu, R/o C.M. Vatika Harnathpura P.S. Kardhani, Kardhani Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.461/2019

¶12

URN: CRLMP / 810U / 2019

¶13

Rameshwar S/o Shri Chothu, R/o C.M. Vatika, Harnathpura, Jaipur

¶14

Pappu S/o Shri Chothu, R/o C.M. Vatika, Harnathpura, Jaipur

¶15

Bhoori W/o Shri Chothu, R/o C.M. Vatika, Harnathpura, Jaipur

¶16

----Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

Moolchand Sharma S/o Shri Phoolchand Sharma, R/o Harnathpura, Kardhani, Jaipur.

¶19

State Of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Satish Kumar Khandal Mr. Vibhor Sharma for JDA

¶22

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶23

Order

¶24

13/07/2026

¶25

These two criminal misc. petitions have been submitted by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR No.721/2018 registered at

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:26271]

[CRLMP-7897/2018]

the Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur (West) for the offences punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶30

It has been averred in these petitions that the land in dispute belongs to the petitioners, but they have been falsely booked in the instant case and they are having valid title over the subject land. Hence, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed and setaside.

¶31

Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor submit that the land in question is a public land, which has been encroached by the petitioners on the basis of the fabricated documents.

¶32

This Court directed the Jaipur Development Authority by impleading it as the party-respondent in the array of cause-title and directed the Jaipur Development Authority to submit the factual report with regard to the status of the subject land. 5. In response to the above, learned counsel for the Jaipur Development Authority submits that the land bearing Khasra No. 86 ad measuring 2.6557 hectares is a public land, which has been encroached by the accused persons for which a notice has also been given to them to remove the same.

¶33

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶34

Perusal of the impugned FIR and the allegations levelled therein reveals commission of cognizable offence. The correctness of the allegations levelled against the petitioners in the impugned FIR cannot be examined by this Court, while exercising its inherent powers contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court cannot conduct fishing and roving enquiry to find out the truth

[2026:RJ-JP:26271]

[CRLMP-7897/2018]

(3 of 3)

behind the allegations levelled against the petitioners, inasmuch as, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer.

¶39

In case, the petitioners are having any valid title over the subject land, they would be at liberty to submit a detailed comprehensive representation before the Investigating Officer. If the same is submitted, it is expected from the Investigating Officer to consider the same and submit the conclusion report of the investigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Competent Court, strictly in accordance with law.

¶40

Since the interim order is operating in favour of the petitioners, their custodial investigation is not required. The Investigating Officer is at liberty to investigate and interrogate the petitioners without insisting for their arrest. The petitioners are directed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer.

¶41

In case, the petitioners fail to co-operate with the Investigating Officer, he would be at liberty to submit an appropriate application before this Court for seeking appropriate directions.

¶42

With the aforesaid observations, these criminal misc. petitions stand disposed of. Stay applications as well as all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶43

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶44

28-29/Karan

Rameshwar S/O Shri Chothu, B/C Bagra Brahmin v. Moolchand Sharma S/O Shri Phoolchand Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rameshwar S/O Shri Chothu, B/C Bagra Brahmin v. Moolchand Sharma S/O Shri Phoolchand Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijit Singh S/O Prithvi Raj Vs State of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Singh Son of Hanumant Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Wasim @ Wasim Akram Son of Aasudeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar Son of Shri Ramswaroop Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Gajendra Vyas S/O Ramavtar Vyas B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkesh Meena S/O Shri Ramsingh Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan