Mamta Kamra vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 16239 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 542/2021

1. Mamta Kamra W/o Nirmal Kamra, Aged About 41 Years, B/c- Kamra, R/o A- 84, Karni Nagar, Pawan Puri, Bikaner.

2. Nirmal Kamra S/o Late Sh. Chandra Bhan Kamra, Aged About 45 Years, B/c Kamra, R/o A- 84, Karni Nagar, Pawan Puri, Bikaner.

----Appellants Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Jaipur.

3. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur.

4. The Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Jaipur.

5. Smt. Preeti Chandra, S.p. Bikaner.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Anil Vyas.
For Respondent(s)          :     ---

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

26/10/2021

This appeal is filed by the original petitioners to challenge the

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.09.2021 in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No. 12614/2021.

The petitioners have made multiple prayers for transferring

S.P., Bikaner Smt. Preeti Chandra to another district and also to

lodge criminal case against her inter-alia under the Prevention of

Corruption Act. The petitioners also requested that the said officer

(2 of 3) [SAW-542/2021]

be suspended and departmental enquiry should be initiated

against her.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the

ground that in such petitions, relief cannot be granted in exercise

of power under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

Perusal of the writ petition would show that the petitioners

had serious disputes with their erstwhile partners with whom the

petitioners had tried to establish an educational institution in

Bikaner. According to the petitioners, the said persons had

committed serious fraud. We are not directly concerned with these

allegations inter-se between the petitioners and the erstwhile

associates. According to the petitioners, during the course of

investigation into the complaint lodged by the petitioners against

those persons, the S.P., Bikaner had taken a partisan stand and

pressurized the petitioners to compromise the issues.

Learned counsel for the appellants-original petitioners stated

that now the concerned S.P., Bikaner has been trasnferred. The

ACB has also registered an FIR against the S.H.O on the

allegations made by the petitioners. Counsel however submitted

that though serious allegations were also made against the S.P.,

F.I.R. has not been registered against her.

The issues which are raised by the petitioners in the present

petition, cannot be examined in a writ jurisdiction. The fact that

the S.P. has now been transferred, has made one of the prayers of

the petitioners infructuous. During the course of investigation into

the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioners, surely the investigating

agency would look into all aspects and file final report on the basis

of the materials which may come on record. If the petitioners have

(3 of 3) [SAW-542/2021]

any other grievance, it is always open for the petitioners to move

departmentally or in terms of Code of Criminal Procedure.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

                                   (SANDEEP MEHTA),J                                        (AKIL KURESHI),CJ


                                    5-jayesh/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)