Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mangilal vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 March, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1482/2022
Mangilal S/o Sh. Gopi Ram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o W.no. 10,
Jambhar Hmt P.s. Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. The Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh (Raj.).
3. The Station House Officer, P.s. Hanumangarh Town,
Rajasthan.
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Range Bikaner (Raj.).
5. Sita Singh S/o Sodagar Singh, R/o Jambhar Police Station
Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh.
6. Chet Ram S/o Sh. Dayal Ram, R/o Jambhar Police Station
Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh.
7. Pokar Ram S/o Sh.gopiram, R/o Jambhar Police Station
Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh.
8. Rajju Devi W/o Modu Ram, R/o Jambhar Police Station
Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh.
9. Mohra Devi W/o Hari Ram, R/o Jambhar Police Station
Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh.
10. Kalo Devi W/o Chetan Ram, R/o Jambhar Police Station
Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh.
11. Gautam S/o Chetan Ram, R/o Jambhar Police Station
Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh.
12. Savitri W/o Magha Ram, R/o Jambhar Police Station
Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh.
13. Ranvir S/o Magha Ram, R/o Jambhar Police Station
Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh.
14. Ramesh S/o Magha Ram, R/o Jambhar Police Station
Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh.
15. Raju S/o Sh. Bhadhar Ram, Bhoompuriya P.s.
Hanumangarh Town, Dist. Hanumangarh.
16. Munshiram S/o Bagdavat Ram, Patli Sadulsaher Dist.
Shriganganagar.
17. Papli Devi W/o Ram Kumar, Chaiya, Rawatsar Dist.
Hanumangarh.
18. Kana Ram S/o Sultanram, Dhumassar, Nohar Khuya,
Dist. Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navneet Poonia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.K.Bhati, PP
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-1482/2022]
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
22/03/2022
1. By way of the present petition, filed under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has alleged that
the Investigating Officer is not conducting proper investigation in
relation to FIR No.609/2021, P.S. Hanumangarh for the offences
under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506, 323, 341 and 120B of
the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribes Act.
2. Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in the cases of Manoj Kumaria
Shankaria Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2014(3) Raj. CriC
965], Narayan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. [2013(1)
Cr.L.R. 264] and Azia Begum Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Anr. [2012(1) RLW 835], has held that a fair and proper
investigation is fundamental to rule of law; it is necessary to meet
the ends of justice.
3. In the cases of Shyam Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr. [2015(3) Cr.L.R. 1375] and Gopal Nath Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr. [2015(4) Cr.L.R. 1617], while relying upon the
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [(2014) 8 SCC 273],
the petitioner therein was asked to submit a representation before
the investigating officer with a corresponding direction to the
investigating officer to consider representation and documents so
submitted, before forming any opinion.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court that fair and
transparent investigation shall be made and in case the petitioner
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-1482/2022]
submits a representation along with all the relevant documents
before the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh within a period
of two weeks from today, the same shall be considered at the time
of investigation.
5. Hence, the present misc. petition is disposed of with
direction to the Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh to
consider petitioner's representation (if filed) and ensure fair
investigation, in accordance with law.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
261-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
