Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Satyanarayan Gupta Son Of Late Mr. Radhe … vs The State Of Rajasthan on 25 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:12712]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7182/2025
1. Satyanarayan Gupta Son Of Late Mr. Radhe Shyam Gupta,
Aged About 56 Years, Presently Residing At 364, Sector-
3, Gems Colony, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302039 (Ra-
jasthan).
2. Govind Mahima Realmart Private Limited, A Company In-
corporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act,
1956 (Now Governed By The Companies Act, 2013) Hav-
ing Its Corporate Identification No. (Cin- U45201R-
j2008Ptc026400) Presently Locates Its Registered Office
At, 707 Paris Point, Near Collectorate Circle Banipark,
Jaipur-302016 (Rajasthan), Through Its Director Mr.
Satyanarayan Gupta Son Of Late Mr. Radhe Shyam Gupta,
Aged About (54) Years Presently Residing At 364, Sector-
3, Gems Colony, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur-302039 (Ra-
jasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor.
2. Shri Govind Kripa Buildmart Private Limited, A Company
Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act,
1956 (Now Governed By The Companies Act, 2013) Hav-
ing Its Corporate Identification No. (Cin- U45201R-
j2007Ptc024320) Locates Its Registered Office At, A-2,
Rana Pratap Nagar, Kalwar Road, Jothwara, Jaipur-
302012, (Rajasthan), Through Its Authorized Representa-
tive Mr. Ankur Khandelwal Son Of Mr. Shankar Khandelwal
Presently Residing At A-2, Rana Pratap Nagar, Kalwar
Road, Jaipur- 302012 (Rajasthan).
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sawdeep Singh Hora
Mr. Rajesh Mehrishi
Mr. Naresh Kumar Sejvani
Mr. Kunal Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv., assisted by
Mr. Amar Kumar
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg
Mr. Rajesh Choudhary-GA-cum-AAG
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 11:58:24 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 07:19:26 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12712] (2 of 8) [CRLMP-7182/2025]
with
Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.G.A.
Ms. Neha Goyal
Mr. Alok Kumar, ACP, Jhotwara
Mr. Suresh Singh, C.I. P.S. Kalwar
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
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 crimi-
nal case, and thereafter, in the year 2017, he was diagnosed Can-
cer. Due to aforesaid situation compromise deed was executed be-
tween 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 or-
der 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,
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 11:58:24 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 07:19:26 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12712] (3 of 8) [CRLMP-7182/2025]
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 devel-
opment agreement, allotment letter of any plot, land
transferring document could be done only with the joint signa-
tures 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 read-
ing of the FIR does not disclose the commission of any criminal of-
fence 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 un-
warranted. 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 fur-
ther 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 peti-
tioners 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
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 11:58:24 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 07:19:26 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12712] (4 of 8) [CRLMP-7182/2025]
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 Online Guj 79
x. T.T. Anthony v. State of Kerala
2001 (6) SCC 181
xi. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI
2013(6) SCC 348
xii. Robert John Dsouza v. Stephen
2015(9) SCC 96
xiii. Kaliash Kumar Sanwatia v. State of Bihar
2003 (7) SCC 399
xiv. Mariam Fasihuddin v. State
2024 (11) SCC 733
xv. AM Mohan v. State
2024 (12) SCC 181
xvi. Rajeshbhai Muljibhai v. State of Gujarat
2020 (3) SCC 794
xvii. Sardar Ali Khan v. State of UP
2020 (12) SCC 51
xviii. Sushil Sethi v. State of AP
2020(3) SCC 240
xix. Sharad Kumar Sanghi v. Sangita Rane
2015 (12) SCC 781
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 11:58:24 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 07:19:26 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12712] (5 of 8) [CRLMP-7182/2025]
xx. Maksud Sayeid v. State of Gujarat
2008 (5) SCC 668
5. Learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate
General assisted by learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2,
opposed the petition and submit that the scope of interference un-
der Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 for quashing of an FIR is
very limited. They further submit that a bare reading of the FIR
clearly discloses the commission of cognizable offences against the
petitioners. They further submit that the existence of an arbitra-
tion clause in the agreement does not bar the registration or con-
tinuation of criminal proceedings against the accused persons.
They further submit that the petitioners have issued forged pattas
by signing them unilaterally, while, as per the agreement, the pat-
tas were required to be executed jointly by both the landowner
and the developer. They further submit that in connivance with an-
other person, the petitioners issued forged pattas pertaining to
different locations within the residential colony, on account of
which, the complainant has suffered financial loss as well as dam-
age to reputation.
6. In support of their contentions, Learned Government Advo-
cate-cum-Additional Advocate General assisted by learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent No.2 has relied upon various judg-
ments, which are as under:-
i. Ravindra Kumar Madhanlal Goenka & Anr. v. M/s.
Rugmini Ram Raghav Spinners P. Ltd., reported in JT
2009 (13) SC 203.
ii. Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat &
Ors., reported in JT 2018 (1) SC 141.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 11:58:24 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 07:19:26 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12712] (6 of 8) [CRLMP-7182/2025]iii. Muskan Vs. Ishaan Khan(Sataniya) and Ors., reported
in 2025 INSC 1287.
iv. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of investigation.,
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 609.
v. Priti Saraf & Anr. Vs. State of NCT of delhi & Anr.,
reported in 2021 SC 154.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Neeharika In-
frastructure Private Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors., reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, in para No.33 held as un-
der:-
“33. In view of the above and for the rea-
sons stated above, our final conclusions on
the principal/core issue, whether the High
Court would be justified in passing an in-
terim order of stay of investigation and/or
“no coercive steps to be adopted”, during
the pendency of the quashing petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C and/or under Article 226
of the Constitution of India and in what cir-
cumstances and whether the High Court
would be justified in passing the order of not
to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps
to be adopted” during the investigation or
till the final report/chargesheet is filed under
Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/dispos-
ing of/not entertaining/not quashing the
criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exer-
cise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, our final conclusions are as under:
33.1. Police has the statutory right and
duty under the relevant provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure contained in
Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into a
cognizable offence.
33.2. Courts would not thwart any in-
vestigation into the cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cog-
nizable offence or offence of any kind is dis-
closed in the first information report that the
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 11:58:24 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 07:19:26 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12712] (7 of 8) [CRLMP-7182/2025]
Court will not permit an investigation to go
on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection, as
it has been observed, in the ‘rarest of rare
cases (not to be confused with the formation
in the context of death penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/com-
plaint, quashing of which is sought, the
court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of
the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to
be scuttled at the initial stage.
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR
should be an exception rather than an ordi-
nary rule.
33.8. Ordinarily, the courts are barred
from usurping the jurisdiction of the police,
since the two organs of the State operate in
two specific spheres of activities and one
ought not to tread over the other sphere.”
9. The criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioners
deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner
No.1 is history-sheeter against whom 94 criminal cases have been
registered in various police stations across Jaipur City, out of
which, 8 cases are pending trial and 21 cases are under
investigation, secondly, the complainant is the owner of the land
upon which the residential colony is under development and the
petitioners have failed to perform their duties regarding such
development, thirdly, admittedly, the petitioners have issued
forged pattas by signing them individually, whereas, according to
the agreement entered between the parties, both the petitioners
and the complainant were required to sign the pattas, fourthly, the
report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) regarding
genuineness of the signature has not yet been received by the
Investigating Agency and lastly, a perusal of the FIR indicates that
cognizable offences appear to have been made out against the
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 11:58:24 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 07:19:26 AM)
[2026:RJ-JP:12712] (8 of 8) [CRLMP-7182/2025]
petitioners and they have the opportunity, at the stage of trial or
at the stage of framing of charges to prove their case, therefore,
considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, no
case is made out for the quashing of the FIR at this stage.
10. Hence, the criminal misc. petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Upendra Pratap Singh /6
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 11:58:24 AM)
(Downloaded on 04/07/2026 at 07:19:26 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
