SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN - JAIPUR BEN
MAJESTIC PROPERTIES PVT LTD AND ORS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJ ASTHAN THROUGH PP AND ORS – Respondent
CRLMP 868/2011



Advocates:
['RAKESH KUMAR', '', 'ANIKET SHARMA', 'SAURABH PRATAP SINGH', 'ANURAG PAREEK', 'KAPIL BHARDWAJ', 'ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA', 'P P', '', 'SURESH SAHNI/R M SHARMA', 'SUNIL KUMAR JAIN', 'SUBHASH CHAND', 'RAVI KANT SHARMA', 'RAKESH MITRUKA', 'JITENDRA MITRUKA', 'INDRESH SHARMA', 'ARUN SINGH SHEKHAWAT']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 868/2011

1. Majestic Properties (Pvt) Ltd. Having their registered office at

1/18B, asaf ali road, new delhi-110002, through its authorized

signatory shri prashant sharma, son of shri s. n. Sharma,

resident of a-34, shivaji marg, nehru nagar, jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Mr. Anurag gupta, managing director; majestic properties pvt.

Ltd, 1/18B, asaf ali road, new delhi-110002.

3. Mr. Prashant Sharma, son of shri s n sharma, resident of a-34,

shivaji marg, nehru nagar, jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through PP.

2. The station house officer (SHO), Police station, jaipur

development authority, J L N marg, jaipur (Rajasthan)

----Respondents

3. Bhagwan Singh, son of Shri Heera Lal, R/o B-3/1, SBBJ Flats,

Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

4. Manoj Jain son of Shri Laxmi Narain Jain, R/o House No.756,

Jain Mandir Area, Village Lalxmangarh, District Alwar

(Rajasthan).

5. Manoj Bansal son of Shri Subhash Chand Bansal, R/o 282-A,

Scheme No.10B, Gopalpura bypass road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

6. Mahima Bansal, wife of Manoj Bansal, r/o 282-A, Scheme

No.10B, Gopalpura bypass Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

7. Subhash Chand Bansal, Son of Shri Niranjan Lal Subhash

Chand Bansal, R/o 282-A, Scheme No.10B, Gopalpura bypass

Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

8. Jyoti singh, wife of Lt. Col. Sandeep singh, R/o C-9/9500,

Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

9. Ishtiyaq Chaudhary, Son of Shri M.I. Choudhary, R/o B-12

Fatehiba Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

10. Babu Lal Chudla, son of Shri Mahadev Prasad Chudla, R/o

73, Gopinathji-ki-Gali, Shahpura, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

11. Rikhab Chand Jain, s/o Shri Laxmi Narain Jain, R/o B-355A,

10B, Scheme (Rajasthan)

12. Hemant kumar, through SHO (Shri rajendra sharma) PS

Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

(2 of 5)

[CRLMP-868/2011]

13. Nitin Bhatnagar, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma), Police

Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

14. Manish Kumar, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma), Police

Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

15. Mr. Saurabh, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma), Police

Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

16. Shakti Sekra, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma), Police

Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

17. Satish Chand Singhal, through SHO (Shri Rajendra Sharma),

Police Station Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

18. Yash Makkar, son of Shri S. N. Makkar, R/o 121, Bahawalpur

Apartment, Plot No.1, Sector – 4, New Delhi-110075.

---Complainant-respondent

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Arvind Kumar Gupta, Sr. Adv.,

Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj,

Mr. Anurag Pareek,

Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Chauhan,

Mr. Aniket Sharma

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahla, PP.

Mr. Suresh Sahni,

Mr. R. M. Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 19.09.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 28.09.2022

This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR

No.154/2011 dated 04.03.2011 registered at Police Station Jaipur

Development Authority, Jaipur for offence(s) punishable under

Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC against the

petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondents

wrongly lodged the present FIR against the petitioners. Learned

counsel for the petitioners also submits that a bare reading of the

(3 of 5)

[CRLMP-868/2011]

FIR does not disclose any offence against the petitioners. Learned

counsel for the petitioners also submits that petitioner No.1

Company was in process of development of various projects in

various States. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits

that respondents have an option to cancel their registration and

get the refund from the Compan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top