Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Omprakash Singh S/O Shri Banwari Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:29288]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1930/2024
CNR: RJHC020268752024 | URN: CRLMP / 4030U / 2024
1. Omprakash Singh S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village- Kudali, Tehsil And Dist. Sikar, Raj.
2. Sanjay Gurjar S/o Shri Ram Niwas Gujjar, Ro Dhani Bada
Bandh, Tan- Papurna, Tehsil-Khetri, Jhunjhunu, Raj.
3. Sanjay @ Bachiya S/o Shri Gajendra, R/o Bandha Ki
Dhani, Tan- Papuran, Tehsil- Khetri, Jhunjhunu, Raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
2. Shriram S/o Shri Bhagwati, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
Lalgarh, Tan- Papurna, Tehsil- Khetri, Dist. Jhunjhunu,
Raj.
—-Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7926/2022
CNR: RJHC020705562022 | URN: CRLMP / 13589U / 2022
1. Omprakash Singh S/o Shri Banwari Lal, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village- Kudali, Tehsil And Dist. Sikar, Raj.
2. Sanjay Gurjar S/o Shri Ram Niwas Gujjar, R/o Dhani Bada
Bandh, Tan- Papurna, Tehsil- Khetri, Jhunjhunu, Raj.
3. Sanjay @ Bachiya S/o Shri Gajendra, R/o Bandha Ki
Dhani, Tan- Papuran, Tehsil- Khetri, Jhunjhunu, Raj.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Jitendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Sriram Meena, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Lalgarh, Tan- Papurna, Tehsil- Khetri,
Dist. Jhunjhunu (Raj).
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 8858/2022
CNR: RJHC020794022022 | URN: CRLMP / 15339U / 2022
1. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Ramniwas Gurjar, R/o Bandha Ki
Dhani, Tan – Papurna, Tehsil – Khetri, Jhunjhunu, Raj.
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 03:24:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 07:06:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29288] (2 of 6) [CRLMP-1930/2024]
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Mohanlal, R/o 45, Karshanam Pancham
Vihar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.
3. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shree Chand, R/o Ward No. 4. Village –
Kudali, Teh. And Dist. – Sikar, Raj.
4. Gajendra Singh S/o Shri Surajmal, R/o Bandha Ki Dhani,
Tan – Papurna, Tehsil – Khetri, Jhunjhunu, Raj.
—-Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Jitendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Sriram Meena, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o Lalgarh, Tan- Papurna, Tehsil –
Khetri, Dist. Jhunjhunu, Raj.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1929/2024
CNR: RJHC020269742024 | URN: CRLMP / 4029U / 2024
Shriram Meena Son Of Shri Bhagwati Prasad Meena, Resident F
Dhani Lalgarh, Tan Papurna, Tehsil Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p
2. Superintendent Of Police, Jhunjhunu, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
3. Station House Officer, Khetri, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
—-Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4161/2024
CNR: RJHC020562082024 | URN: CRLMP / 8444U / 2024
Sunil Gurjar S/o Late Ramniwas, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Badabandh, Teh-Papurna, Police Station-Khetri, Dist. Neem Ka
Thana.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2. Shriram Meena S/o Shri Bhagwati Prasad Meena, Aged
About 53 Years, R/o Lalgarh, Tan-Papurna, Tehsil- Khetri,
Dist. Jhunjhunu. Raj.
—-Respondents
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 03:24:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 07:06:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29288] (3 of 6) [CRLMP-1930/2024]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain with
Ms. Shobha Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh with
Mr. Jitesh Kumawat
Ms. Prachi Singh
Mr. Lokesh Kumar Yadav
Mr. Yunus Khan
Mr. Phool Chand, RPS, Addl. SP, QIPT,
present in person.
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
28/07/2026
In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) Nos.1930/2024,
7926/2022, 8858/2022 & 4161/2024:-
1. By way of filing these petitions, a prayer has been made for
quashing the proceedings of impugned FIR No.208/2021
registered at the Police Station Khetri, District Jhunjhunu for the
offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 IPC and the
impugned FIR No.388/2022 registered at the Police Station Khetri,
District Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that with regard
to the same allegations, which have been levelled in the above
mentioned impugned FIRs, two similar FIR Nos.238/2019 and
660/2019 were registered at the same Police Station against the
petitioners by the same complainant on an earlier occasion, which
resulted in Final Report (Negative). Learned counsel submits that
the Investigating Officer of the earlier FIR Nos.238/2019 and
660/2019 was of the view that the instant case is a dispute of civil
nature. Learned counsel submits that on the basis of the same
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 03:24:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 07:06:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29288] (4 of 6) [CRLMP-1930/2024]allegations, now the impugned successive FIRs have been
registered and the same are not tenable in the eyes of law, hence,
the same are liable to be quashed and set-aside. Learned counsel
further submits that even with regard to the FIR No.208/2021,
when reply was submitted before this Court, the Investigating
Officer was of the view that no case is made out against the
petitioners. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this
Court is warranted and both the aforesaid impugned FIRs are
liable to be quashed.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the
prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted
that the dispute pertains to mining lease agreement between the
parties. He submits that initially the complainant and the accused
persons were partners in the mining lease, but subsequently by
falsely fabricating the signatures of the complainant, a fake reply
was submitted before the Mining Department and on the basis of
the same, new mining lease was issued in favour of the accused
persons. Learned counsel submits that allegations levelled in the
earlier FIR Nos. 238/2019 and 660/2019 are altogether different
from the allegations levelled in the impugned FIRs. He further
submits that complainant is also different in both the FIRs. Hence,
under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not
warranted.
4. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the
Investigating Officer, i.e., Additional Superintendent of Police,
Special Investigation Unit, Women Atrocities Cases has put
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 03:24:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 07:06:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29288] (5 of 6) [CRLMP-1930/2024]appearance in person along-with the case diary and the factual
report of investigation conducted so far.
5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and
perused the material available on record.
6. The case set out in both the impugned FIRs reveals
commission of cognizable offence. The correctness of the
allegations cannot be examined, adjudged or adjudicated by this
Court while exercising its inherent powers contained under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Certainly, this task has been assigned to the
Investigating Officer.
7. At this stage, this Court is not supposed to conduct a mini
trial or conduct a fishing & roving enquiry to find out the truth
behind the allegations levelled against the accused or treat
whatever the accused is saying as gospel truth. The matter is
required to be investigated by the Investigating Officer.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners are at
liberty to submit their appropriate representation before the
Investigating Officer, who shall consider the same in accordance
with law and thereafter, he would be at liberty to submit the
conclusion report of investigation under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before
the concerned Court, strictly in accordance with law.
9. With the aforesaid observations, these criminal misc.
petitions stand disposed of. Stay applications as well as all
pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
10. In case the Investigating Officer comes to the conclusion that
a cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners and their
arrest is required, then a prior notice of 15 days be given to the
petitioners.
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 03:24:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 07:06:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:29288] (6 of 6) [CRLMP-1930/2024]
11. Before parting with this order, it is made clear that this Court
has not expressed its opinion on the merits of the case and no
observations have been made against the accused. The
Investigating Officer would be at liberty to proceed with the
investigation on the basis of the evidence available on record.
In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1929/2024:-
1. A prayer has been made by the complainant for issuing
directions to the Investigating Officer for conducting fair and
impartial investigation in FIR No.208/2021, registered at the Police
Station Khetri, District Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable
under Sections 420 and 406 IPC.
2. Perusal of the factual report of investigation as well as the
case diary reveal that the Investigating Officer has already
conducted fair and impartial investigation, hence, under these
circumstances, there is no need to issue further directions.
3. With the aforesaid observations, this criminal misc. petition
stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
113-117/Karan
(Uploaded on 30/07/2026 at 03:24:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 30/07/2026 at 07:06:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
