[2025:RJ-JP:46822]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.3981/2019 Deepak Jain S/o Late Shree Tara Chand Jain, aged about 44 Years, R/o D-22, Luvkush Marg, Hanuman Nagar D-Block, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through P.P.

----Respondent

2. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur, through its Secretary.

----Complainant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta with Mr. Harshit Bhatt For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Ishan Kumawat for J.D.A.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

RESERVED ON :: 19.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON :: 26.11.2025 1. By way of filing this criminal miscellaneous petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 23.04.2015 passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur, whereby cognizance for offences under Section 31(1) & 32(7) of Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 (for short, 'the Act of 1982') has been taken against him.

2. Petitioner has also assailed order dated 27.04.2019 passed by the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, No.9, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby revision petition filed by the petitioner against cognizance order dated 23.04.2015 has been dismissed.

3. It is submitted that Sidhi Vinayak Buildestate Private Limited is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Petitioner was inducted as one of the Director of the said company on 24.01.2001 and he resigned as Director of the company w.e.f., 16.08.2001. Copy of the Form No.32 submitted in the office of Assistant Registrar of company has been placed on record by the petitioner to prove that after

16.08.2001, he ceased to be Directer of above company.

4. It is also submitted that while petitioner was Director of the company for a limited period between 24.01.2001 to 16.08.2001, plot of land bearing No.B-7, Central Spine, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur was owned by the above company and lease deed dated 13.07.2001 was issued by the Jaipur Development Authority (for short, 'JDA') in favour of the aforesaid company and name of the petitioner was mentioned in the lease deed only in the capacity of Director of the above company. It is reiterated that after resignation of the petitioner as Director of the above company, he has got no relation whatsoever with the company, nor has he got any individual right, title or interest in the aforesaid plot of land.

5. It is further submitted that after resignation of the petitioner from the above company, in the year 2002, above company sought permission for construction and some construction appears to have been raised on the said plot. However, petitioner was neither involved in the proceedings of taking sanction for construction, nor was he part of construction team, on account of his resignation as a Director in the 2001.

6. The Enforcement Officer of the JDA inspected the aforesaid building on 04.08.2014 and issued notice under Section 31(1) & 32 of the Act of 1982 pointing out certain violations in the construction and directed the company to remove the aforesaid construction. However, the said notice was issued in the name of petitioner showing him to be a Director of Sidhi Vinayak Buildestate Private Limited, whereas as on 04.08.2014, he was no longer a Director of the company. Hence, on 14.08.2014, the petitioner submitted reply to the notice issued by the Enforcement Officer of JDA clarifying that he had already resigned from the company on 16.08.2001 and the details of existing directors of the company along with their mobile numbers was also given by the petitioner to the Enforcement Officer of JDA.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite clarification given by the petitioner that after his resignation in the year 2001, he is not at all connected with the company, a complaint under Section 75 of the Act of 1982 was filed by the Enforcement Officer of JDA