State Of Rajasthan, Through Its P.p. vs Sh. Rajesh Sedawat S/o Sh. Radhey Shyam Sedawat, R/o

: Mr.RB Mathur, Sr.Adv. with Mr. Nikhil Simlote For Respondent(s) : Mr.Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr.Rishiraj Singh Rathore, PP Mr.Ram Manohar Sharma – for respondent No.2 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment Reserved on :: 04/07/2025 Pronounced on :: 20/08/2025

1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking directions for quashing of FIR No. 0599/2022 dated 20.11.2022, registered at Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur (West), Rajasthan, for offences under [2025:RJ-JP:32027] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-2932/2023] Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 452 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners apprised the Court of the factual matrix of the case. It was submitted that three plots situated at Shiv Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, were initially allotted to one Satya Narayan Kumawat by Tagore Nagar Griha Nirman Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Samiti”). Thereafter, the Samiti issued pattas in respect of the said plots in favour of one Shivji Ram Kumawat, who claimed to pay the requisite amount upon obtaining possession. However, upon being unsuccessful in taking the possession of the plots and went on to give the power of attorney as to obtaining possession of the plots to respondent no. 2.

3. Learned counsel further contended that the said plots were situated on the ancestral land of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. It was also submitted that the complainant, on 10.11.2008, along with 8–10 other persons, had attempted to forcibly take possession of the said plots by evicting petitioner no.3 and 4. Resultantly, an FIR bearing No. 17/2009 was lodged at Police Station Karni Vihar, and a charge-sheet came to be filed against the complainant.

4. It was next contended that, upon failure of the complainant to secure possession, petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 instituted a civil suit being Civil Suit No. 68/2009 before the Court of Additional Civil Judge and Metropolitan Magistrate No. 8, Jaipur Metropolitan, seeking permanent injunction against Shivji Ram Kumawat from interfering with their possession over the disputed property. The learned Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated [2025:RJ-JP:32027] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-2932/2023]

23.09.2017, decreed the suit in favour of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 and granted the relief of permanent injunction.

5. Subsequently, on the strength of a Power of Attorney, Shivji Ram Kumawat procured registration of the said plots in the name of his mother, Smt. Rukmini Devi. At a later stage, Smt. Rukmini Devi instituted a suit for eviction and permanent injunction against petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. Along with the said suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC for temporary injunction was also filed. The Trial Court, vide order dated 22.09.2021, allowed the said application for temporary injunction in favour of Smt. Rukmini Devi.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred an appeal being SB Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1801/2021. The Appellate Court, vide order dated 09.11.2021, directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the disputed property. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 had applied for pattas of the disputed plots, and upon due scrutiny, the Jaipur Development Authority issued pattas in their favour. The same came to be registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur VII, on

16.09.2020.

7. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is clearly emerged that the parties were embroiled in a long-standing property dispute and that the impugned FIR had been lodged with oblique motives to harass, browbeat, blackmail, and humiliate the petitioners. Hence, the FIR in question deserved to be quashed. [2025:RJ-JP:32027] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-2932/2023]

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents had stoutly opposed the present petition.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submitted that the instant matter involved disputed questions of fact. It was urged that the parties had a chequered history of litigation, and that the learned Trial Court, vide order dated

22.09.2021, had granted temporary injunction in favour of Smt. Rukmani Devi. In these circumstances, it was contended that the FIR so registered warranted due investigation in accordance with law.

10. Having heard the contentions put-forth by counsel representing respective parties this Court is of the view that this petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No. 0599/2022 dated

20.11.2022 registered at Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur (West), for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 448, 452 and 120- B of the Indian Penal Code.

11. In the factual backdrop, as placed by learned counsel for the petitioners and the material available on record, this Court is of a view that the record discloses parallel and contested civil proceedings, including: (i) a decree of permanent injunction (23.09.2017) in favour of Petitioners Nos. 3 and 4; (ii) a subsequent order of temporary injunction (22.09.2021) in favour of Smt. Rukmini Devi; and (iii) an appellate order of status quo (09.11.2021). [2025:RJ-JP:32027] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-2932/2023] These competing civil orders, coupled with rival claims about title, possession, pattas, and the effect/validity of a Power of Attorney, throw up disputed questions of fact which cannot be resolved in a petition under Section 482 CrPC. The High Court, at this stage, is not expected to weigh evidence, adjudicate title, or pronounce on the genuineness of documents—matters reserved for trial or the competent civil forum. The Supreme Court has consistently cautioned that while exercising inherent jurisdiction, High Courts must not conduct a mini-trial, and interference is warranted only in the limited situations recognized in precedent. In Dharambeer Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand and Ors.: 2024 INSC 583, the Court reiterated that at the stage of Section 482 (or discharge) the High Court is not to undertake a minute examination of the record or return findings on disputed facts.

12. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315 a three-Judge Bench summarized the governing parameters, emphasizing that (a) quashing is an exception; (b) ordinarily investigation should not be interdicted; and (c) blanket interim orders like “no coercive steps” are to be avoided save in exceptional cases for recorded reasons.

13. Therefore, it is opined that the present matter does not fall within the narrow categories warranting quashment under Bhajan Lal Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.: 1992 Supp (1) SCC. Interdicting investigation or quashing proceedings now would transgress the restraint mandated in M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and allied authorities. [2025:RJ-JP:32027] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-2932/2023]

14. In view of the subsisting and conflicting civil orders (temporary injunction and status quo), the evident and material disputed questions of fact, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s mandate that High Courts must be slow to intervene under Section 482 where adjudication would entail a mini-trial, this Court finds no ground to exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash FIR No. 0599/2022. However, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the police/investigating authorities to act and investigate the matter in hand promptly, as per the directions and guidelines enumerated in the letter No.13874-958 dated 10.06.2025 issued by Office of Director General of Police, Rajasthan Jaipur.

15. The petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction that no coercive actions be taken against the petitioners subject to their cooperation and joining in the investigation, that shall be carried out in light of the guidelines enumerated in letter dated

10.06.2025. It is clarified that investigation and further proceedings shall continue strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations herein. No orders are passed as to costs. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed. Preeti Asopa (SAMEER JAIN),J