##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14784]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 371/2026

Bansi Lal S/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Saree Chidawa Sultana Jhunjhunun Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Dayaram S/o Chandagiram, R/o Bas Kirtan Rajgarh Hamirwas Churu Rajasthan

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 16/02/2026 DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 16/02/2026

FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 06/04/2026

BY THE COURT:-

1. The present petition emanates from an FIR registered against the petitioner–accused, Bansilal, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 318(4) and 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court, seeking quashment of the impugned FIR and all consequential proceedings arising

therefrom.

2. The factual matrix, as discernible from the record, unfolds that the complainant was allegedly approached by the petitioner in

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:02:56 PM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 10:49:21 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14784] (2 of 9) [CRLW-371/2026] July, 2025 with an inducement that employment could be secured for him in Singapore. In furtherance thereof, a sum of ₹6,10,000/-

was allegedly demanded.

2.1. It is asserted that on 30.08.2025, an amount of ₹30,000/- was transferred by the complainant into the petitioner’s bank account. Subsequently, the complainant was instructed to reach Delhi on 02.09.2025 along with the remaining amount in cash,

purportedly for the purpose of currency exchange.

2.2. The prosecution version further proceeds that on 03.09.2025, the petitioner took the complainant from Delhi to Thailand and arranged his stay in a temporary and substandard accommodation, while he himself purportedly left to exchange the money. It is alleged that later in the day, the petitioner returned and informed the complainant that he had been robbed at gunpoint, thereby frustrating the proposed travel and

necessitating their return.

2.3. Thereafter, on 09.09.2025, both parties allegedly returned to Delhi, and on 10.09.2025, the petitioner is stated to have issued a cheque of ₹6,30,000/- dated 10.10.2025 in favour of the complainant. It is further alleged that the petitioner subsequently caused closure of his bank account, thereby rendering the cheque incapable of encashment. On the strength of these allegations, the

impugned FIR came to be registered.

2.4. Upon culmination of investigation, the police agency has evaluated the entirety of material collected during investigation,

(Uploaded on 09/04/2026 at 01:02:56 PM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 10:49:21 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14784] (3 of 9) [CRLW-371/2026] including the statements of witnesses, banking transactions, and

surrounding circumstances.

2.5. The Investigating Agency, upon a comprehensive and meticulous examination of the material collected during the course of investigation, has arrived at the considered opinion that the victim was dishonestly induced by the accused through deliberate misrepresentation and deceitful conduct. Acting under such inducement, and being misled by the false assurances so extended, the victim was persuaded to part with valuable assets and property in favour of the accused. The circumstances, therefore, unmistakably disclose the essential ingredients

constituting the offence of cheating.

2.6. It is further submitted that the Investigating Agency, having duly evaluated the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, has filed its final report concluding that cogent, credible, and legally admissible evidence has emerged during investigation. Such evidence sufficiently establishes, at this stage, the prima facie involvement of the accused in the commission of the alleged

offences.

2.7. In light of the foregoing findings, the Investigating Ag