The court's decision was influenced by the principles laid down in Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi and State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Ors., emphasizing the need for sound, reasonable, and indubitable material to quash criminal proceedings and prevent abuse of process of law.

ORDER

1. These instant criminal misc. petitions have been preferred by the accused petitioners seeking quashing of FIR No.242/2016 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur City (South) for the Offences under Sections 420, 406, 457, 380 and 120-B IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners and complainant are closed relative. Complainant has lodged the present FIR against the petitioners on wrong facts. As per FIR, it is lodged after inordinate delay of 4-5 months. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that as per FIR, incident of Vishvakarma, Jaipur but present FIR has been lodged in Police Station Jhotwara. So, Police Station Jhotwara has no right to conduct the investigation in this matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that complainant in FIR levelled the allegation of theft goods value of Rs.1,57,78,771/- but he has not submitted any document regarding these goods. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that after investigation, two times FR were proposed but complainant had managed to change the investigation and present Investigating Officer has wrongly found the offence under Sections 453 and 380 IPC proved. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that present FIR was lodged after statement of Kamlesh which was recorded during the proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that there is no eye witness regarding the offence. So, the present FIR be quashed against the petitioners.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the respondent have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that after investigation, Investigating Officer has found the offence under Sections 453 and 380 IPC proved. They further submitted that proceedings under Negotiable Instruments Act are pending since 2012 but the present incident of 2016. They further submitted that previously, Investigating Officer had given a negative final report due to pressure of petitioners. They further submitted that petitioners had appeared before the concerned Investigating Officer for investigation. They further submitted that petitioners went to conclude the trial in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. So, the petitions be dismissed.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent.

5. The Hon’ble Apex court has dealt with the proposition of law pertaining to quashing of FIR/complaint/all criminal proceedings initiated against an accused by High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in catena of judgments. Particularly, in the case of Prashant Bharti v. State of NCT of Delhi, reported in AIR 2013 SC 2753, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has held as under:

23. Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would