[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Ranveer Singh Son Of Madan Lal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:19780) on 12 May, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:19780]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 510/2025
Ranveer Singh Son Of Madan Lal, Aged About 41 Years, Resident
Of Panalava, Tehsil Laxmangarh,police Station Balara, District
Sikar (Raj). At Present Residing At House No. 103-B, Kateva
Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2. Jalesingh Son Of Harchand, Aged About 49 Years,
Resident Of Vidhyak Nagar Chirawa, Jhunjkhunu (Raj).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avtar Singh for
Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, P.P.
Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
12/05/2025
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
present petition is filed seeking quashing of FIR No.70/2023
registered on 08.02.2023 at Police Station Jhunjhunu for the
offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. It is further submitted
that dispute herein pertains to commercial transaction. Further, it
is submitted that there is no ingredient of Section 420 IPC.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has furnished the
factual report and has submitted that the same reflects that
forged/scam is committed by the company in a well planned
manner, whereby, economically disadvantaged or vulnerable
(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:58:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:19780] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-510/2025]
individuals were allegedly duped into investing in real estate
transaction/schemes, promising assured returns.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and
upon perusal of factual report, this Court has noted that evidence
collected during investigation proves the commission of an offence
under the provisions of Section 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and
Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and relevant
provisions of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019
in addition to offence alleged under IPC; that scope of fraud
seems to be extensive, with many members of public potentially
affected, thus, the same cannot be given a colour of commercial
dispute or private dispute.
For the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to
interfere with the present petition.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Factual report is taken on record.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
GAURAV/8
(Downloaded on 15/05/2025 at 09:58:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link