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
['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