Rajasthan High Court
CRLMP/2628/2025 of VINOD KUMAR DHAMA S/O SHRI RICHHPAL SINGH, Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 14 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2628/2025 CNR: RJHC020376062025 | URN: CRLMP / 6235U / 2025 Vinod Kumar Dhama S/o Shri Richhpal Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Pavala Begamabad, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh-250515. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2628/2025
CNR: RJHC020376062025 | URN: CRLMP / 6235U / 2025
Vinod Kumar Dhama S/o Shri Richhpal Singh, Aged About 55
Years, R/o Pavala Begamabad, Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh-250515.
----Petitioner
Versus
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
2.
Shankar Lal S/o Shri Kushakla Ram, Aged About 50
Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Athuna Mohalla, Losal, Police Station Losal, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Anurodh Chaturvedi
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with
Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
14/08/2026
1. By way of this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the FIR No.264/2023 registered at Police Station Udyog Nagar, District Sikar for Offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that no case is made out against the petitioner. Counsel submits that it has not been alleged in the FIR that the petitioner had induced the complainant to invest money in his company by assuring him of substantial returns. Counsel further submits that as per the allegations in the FIR, complainant was induced by other co-accused persons to invest in the
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-2628/2025] company and subsequently the complainant was introduced to the petitioner. Counsel submits that merely meeting the complainant pursuant to such introduction by co-accused persons, does not constitute a criminal offence, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, the impugned FIR may be quashed.
3. Learned State Counsel opposes the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner. He has submitted a factual report dated 29.05.2026 received from concerned Police Station, which is taken on record.
4. According to the factual report, offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of the IPC have been found proved against the petitioner. The factual report also reflects that ten more cases have been registered against the petitioner and in seven cases, charge-sheets have been filed against him.
5. I have considered the submissions and perused the material available on record as well as the impugned FIR.
6. Perusal of the FIR reveals that co-accused person induced the complainant to invest a handsome amount of money in the company of the petitioner by assuring him of good returns and pursuant of which a meeting was arranged between the complainant and the petitioner. The factual report submitted by the Investigating Agency reveals that ten other cases are registered against the petitioner and he is stated to be the kingpin in all such cases. The petitioner along with the other co-accused persons is alleged to be involved in duping innocent persons by inducing them to invest their money in lieu of getting handsome returns. The FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences and the investigation conducted so far reveals that prima facie
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-2628/2025] offences are made out against the petitioner. Thus, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the guidelines prescribed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal & Ors., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to satisfy this Court as to existence of any such exceptional or attending circumstance under which, even if the FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence, it can be quashed.
7. Therefore, in facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations levelled by the complainant in the FIR are required to be investigated by the Investigation Agency. Thus, this Court does not find a good ground to quash the FIR against the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the present Cr. Misc. Petition is hereby dismissed.
9. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 12/RASHMI