Jagdish Nath vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7864 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2954/2022

Jagdish Nath S/o Shri Madhu Nath, Aged About 44 Years, B/c Yogi, R/o Water Works Road, P.s. Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumbhat with Mr. Sheetal Kumbhat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, P. P.

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

25/05/2022

1. The present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner

raising a grievance that despite first information report having

been lodged against four persons effective steps have not been

taken with regard to investigation of the matter.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention

towards the FIR and submitted that in spite of the fact that

consequent to investigation, enough material against co-accused -

Dilip Singh, Ummed Singh and Sangeeta had been collected and

in whose accounts the amount was deposited, the Investigating

Officer has filed charge-sheet only against Anand Dan Charan,

whereas the charge-sheet ought to have been filed against the

above referred three co-accused as well.

3. Similar submissions were made in relation to Girdhar and

Mamta.

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-2954/2022]

4. On concern being showed by this Court that once the

charge-sheet has been filed, whether an order for further

investigation can be passed, learned counsel relied upon the

judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dharam

Pal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 2016 Cr.L.R. (SC)

321 and submitted that while exercising its power under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court can issue

such direction.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon

perusal of the material available, this Court is of the view that the

case in hand does not call for further investigation and petitioner's

essential grievance is against non-filing of charge-sheet against

the above referred five persons. It is too late in a day to order

de novo investigation, as the charges have been framed.

6. This Court is not inclined to accede to petitioner's request at

such a belated stage. A liberty is, however, given to the petitioner

to raise such grounds at the appropriate stage.

7. This being the position, the misc. petition is disposed of.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 202-A.Arora/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)