Kota, P.s. Nayapura, District Kota (Raj) v. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor

Ashfaq Ahmad Son of Shri Abdul Latif, R/o 1-Jh-16, Vigyan Nagar, Kota (Raj). Connected With ----Respondents S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1767/2025 Jalil Mohammad S/o Jamil Mohammad, Aged About 39 Years, Resident of Chota Sarafa Bazar, Behind Baba Mardan Gate, Baran.

2. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. Asfaq Ahmad S/o Abdul Latif, R/o 1 Jh 16 Vigyan Nagar Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naseemuddin Qazi Mr. Vishal Kumar for Mr. Amit Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 09/09/2025

1. In both the present Criminal Misc. Petitions, accused- petitioners have impugned FIR No. 09/2025, registered for [2025:RJ-JP:36252] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-4142/2025] offences under Sections 420, 406 IPC at Police Station Vigyan Nagar, Kota, which is pending at the stage of investigation.

2. Counsel for petitioners have argued that impugned FIR was registered through a Criminal Complaint and in the FIR, the complainant himself admits to enter into an agreement with the petitioner Ashfaq Mohammad on 28.9.2021 to get convert his Agricultural lands into Abadi in order to sell such lands and for this purpose complainant stated to make payment of Rs.15,00,000/- to Ashfaq Mohammad. Further, in the FIR, it has been admitted by complainant that initially he filed FIR No. 246/2023 but later on, brother of petitioner Ashfaq Mohammad, Jalil Mohammad entered into mediation and an agreement dated 23.01.2023, as also two other agreements dated 11.01.2024 were executed between complainant and accused-petitioners, and three cheques to refund the amount of Rs. 37,50,000/- were issued by Jalil Mohammad.

3. It has been pointed out that in the FIR, it is also an admitted fact that complainant has filed a Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act for dishonor of three cheques against both the accused persons, hence, in such circumstances, no criminal cognizable offence is made out and the FIR be quashed.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has placed on record the factal report of Investigation dated 17.07.2025 pointing out that in the investigation, offences under Sections 420 and 406 IPC have been, prima facie, made out against both accused persons, since accused person Ashfaq Mohammad, received huge money from the complainant on pretext of getting his agricultural lands converted to Abadi land by projecting himself to be an employee [2025:RJ-JP:36252] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-4142/2025] of UIT Kota, but indeed he was not authorized to do such proceedings nor has any connection with UIT. Further, accused petitioner Jameel Mohammad, misguided complainant to enter into compromise with the accused-petitioner Ashfaq Mohammad and issued three cheques for Rs. 9,00,000/-, Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 22,50,000/- (in total Rs. 37,50,000/-) in the name of complainant, which later on was dishonored. In this way, in the Investigation, it has been observed that both accused persons committed fraud with the complainant and by dissuading him, received huge amount of Rs.37,50,000/- from complainant and have misappropriated that amount. The factual report is taken on record.

5. Counsel for petitioner has placed on record a copy of Criminal Complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 138 of the NI Act against both accused persons as also has placed on record a copy of Civil Suit allegedly filed by accused petitioner Ashfaq Mohammad against complainant seeking to declare the agreements entered into between parties as null and void so also to injunct the complainant not to misuse three cheques issued by his brother Jameel Mohammad.

6. Counsel for petitioners during course of arguments is not able to disclose further proceedings and present status of the criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, so also of the Civil Suit.

7. Having perused the averment of FIR and taking into consideration the rival contentions recorded hereinabove, it is apparent that the allegations levelled in the FIR on its face value [2025:RJ-JP:36252] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-4142/2025] discloses a commission of cognizable offences under Sections 406, 420 IPC and in investigation, such offences have been found prima facie established by the Police against both accused persons. As far as filing of criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act by the complainant is concerned, it is for the petitioners to bring this fact and produce the certified copy of the criminal complaint and further proceedings thereupon before the Investigating Officer. The certified copy of the Civil Suit and proceedings carried thereupon, may also be produced by the accused petitioners before the Investigating Officer, who shall obviously consider the effect of same on the present FIR, if has not considered so far. Investigation Officer may also enquire from the complainant about the fact of his criminal complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.

8. At this stage of Investigation, the exercise of inherent jurisdiction by the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile 482 Cr.P.C.) is not warranted as it is trite law that High Court cannot hold a mini trial or cannot usurp jurisdiction of Investigation Agency. A fishing enquiry to enquire about the correctness/ truthfulness of the allegations is not warranted in exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Once the allegations levelled in the FIR, discloses the commission of cognizable offence, it is not required to examine that offence is made out or not.

9. The Supreme Court in case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2021 SCC OnLine SC 315], following the ratio decidendi expounded in the celebrated judgment of State of Haryana v. Choudhary Bhajan [2025:RJ-JP:36252] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-4142/2025] Lal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335], has observed and opined as under: "i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences; ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences; iii) ……… iv) …….. v) While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint; vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage; vii) Quashing of a complaint/ FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule; viii) ……… ix) ……… x) ………. xi) ……… xii) …….. xiii) …….. xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restrained imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal (supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/ complaint; and xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/ police to investigate the allegations in the FIR.”

10. The aforesaid principles have been followed in case of State Represented by the Inspector of Police Vs. M. Maridoss & Anr. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 25].

11. In view of above, this Court does not find the present case to be fit for quashing the impugned FIR in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS. [2025:RJ-JP:36252] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-4142/2025]

12. Accordingly, these petitions are devoid of merits and same are hereby dismissed.

13. Interim order dated 14.07.2025 stands vacated.

14. Stay applications and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. NITIN /2-3 (SUDESH BANSAL),J