FIRs should not be quashed at the initial stage if the allegations prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences, especially when the authenticity of documents is under investigation and the court must not thwart statutory police duties.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

25/03/2026

1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned FIR No.361/2025 registered with Police Station Kalwar Jaipur (west) on 17.10.2025 for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316 (5), 338, 340(2), 61(2) (b), 336 (2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).

2. The relevant facts of this criminal misc. petition are that the FIR No.361/2025 was lodged at Police Station Kalwar Jaipur (west) on 17.10.2025 by Ankur Khandelwal for offences under Sections 318(4), 316 (5), 338, 340(2), 61(2) (b), 336 (2) of BNS against Sohan Lal Tambi, Satyanarain Gupta, Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Ghanshyam Gupta and allegation in the FIR shows that in the year 2016, his father, Shankar Khandelwal was arrested in a criminal case, and thereafter, in the year 2017, he was diagnosed Cancer. Due to aforesaid situation compromise deed was executed between Satyanarain Gupta and Shankar Khandelwal in March 2017. As per compromise under the agreement blank signed pattas of land owned by M/s Govindpura Build Mart Pvt. Ltd. i.e. in the share of father Shankar Khandelwal, measuring 50000 Sq. yards. of Parth City were kept with Sohan Lal Tambi. He in collusion in order to gain undue gain and for causing undue loss to complainant, out of the Pattas of 50000 sq yds land which is costing 150 crores, issued fake pattas in his own name and in the name of his family members. Satya Narain Gupta also issued forged and fabricated pattas in the name of Rakesh Kumar Gupta and Ghanshyam Gupta, under his own signatures only, and thus, has illegally sold the land, whereas as per condition No. 9.6 sub-clause(b) of development agreement, allotment letter of any plot, land transferring document could be done only with the joint signatures of both-the owner and developer. In such a manner, Sohan Lal and Satya Narain Gupta under a criminal conspiracy, sold the land and misappropriated land worth crores of rupees.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a bare reading of the FIR does not disclose the commission of any criminal offence against the petitioners. He further submits that the matter pertains to a civil dispute, for which the complainant has wrongly lodged the FIR against the petitioners. He further submits that the dispute arises out of the development of a residential colony and that in the event of breach of any clause, an arbitration agreement exists between the parties; therefore, the lodging of the FIR is unwarranted. He further submits that the petitioners are directors of the company and, as such, cannot be held liable for any alleged criminal acts committed by the company or on its behalf. He further submits that the petitioners are developers of the residential colony, holding 40% share in the company as developers.

4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon various judgments, which are as under:-

i. Delhi Race Club Ltd. v. State of UP

(2024) 10 SCC 890

ii. Lalit Kumar Duggar v. State of Rajasthan

S.B. Crl. Misc. (Pet) No. 6915/2022

Order dated 22.05.2025

iii. Arun Kumar v. State of Raj

S.B. Crl. Misc. (Pet) No. 2089/2018

iv. Mohammad Ibrahim v. State of Bihar

2009 (8) SCC 751

v. Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka

2022 (14) SCC 572

vi. Velji Raghavji Patel v. State of Maharashtra

1965 (2) SCR 429

vii. Hari Mohan v. State of Rajasthan

MANU/RH/0962/2006

viii. Shyam Sunder Bajaj v. State of Rajasthan

S.B. Criminal Misc. Pet No. 5235/2014

ix. Jashbhai Gordhanbhai Patel v. Hasmukhlal

1971 SCC O