JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court with the grievance that pursuant to FIR No.8 dated 07.01.2022, the petitioner is being implicated by the Investigating Officer simply because the land (bada in question) belongs to him. 2. Mr. Charan, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the bada in question had been handed over to one Rameshwar S/o Shri Narayan Goswami on mortgage and in furtherance whereof, an agreement dated 20.11.2021 has been executed. 3. While highlighting that a copy of the said agreement has been produced before the Investigating Officer, learned counsel raised a grievance that the Investigating Officer is still harassing the petitioner and not considering the same in accordance with law. 3. It is further asserted that recently said Rameshwar, to whom bada in question has been given and which was in his possession on the date of recovery, has himself written a letter to the Investigating Officer, accepting that the bada in question was in his possession and control. 4. In the opinion of this Court, such factual inquiry as to bada in question was in whose possession, cannot be done by the High Court. 5. The present petition is, therefore, disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Officer to consider agreement dated 20.11.2021 and the letter said to have been given by Rameshwar to the Superintendent of Police indicating therein that the bada in question was in his possession. 6. The petitioner shall join the investigation and file his representation. He shall not be arrested in connection with FIR No.8/2022, P.S. Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh, unless the Investigating Officer comes to a conclusion that the bada in question from where the contraband was recovered, was in conscious possession of the petitioner.