Shankar Khandelwal S/O Shri Mohan ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 1981 Raj/2

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1981 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 10 February, 2023

Rajasthan High Court

Shankar Khandelwal S/O Shri Mohan ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 February, 2023

Bench: Birendra Kumar

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 188/2023
Nawal Kishore Dangyach S/o Shri Jugal Kishore Dangyach, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o A-34-A, Ram Nagar, Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur
Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor, Jaipur
       Rajasthan.
2.     Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Jaipur.
3.     Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur.
4.     Sho Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (West), Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2444/2019

1. Shankar Khandelwal S/o Shri Mohan Lal Khandelwal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 171, Officers Campus, Sirsi Road, Jaipur.

2. Renu Khandelwal W/o Shri Teekam Khandelwal, R/o 171, Officers Campus, Sirsi Road, Jaipur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

2. Nawal Kishore Dangayach S/o Shri Jugal Kishore, R/o A-

34A, Shastri Nagar, Ram Nagar, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora, Adv.

(respondent in CRLMP No.2444/2019) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Raj Singh Bajwa, Sr. Adv.

with Mr. Amar Kumar, Adv. (petitioner in CRLMP No.2444/2019) Mr. G.S. Rathore, GA-Cum-AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR Order

10/02/2023

S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 188/2023:-

(2 of 4) [CRLW-188/2023]

The petitioner has sought for following reliefs in this petition

under Article 226 of The Constitution of India.

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly allow this writ petition and by issuing appropriate order and direction and be pleased to:

a) accept and allow this petition and kindly direct the respondent No. 2 to conduct a fair and impartial investigation by getting matter investigated from SOG;

b) direct the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to not to submit the negative Final Report in the present matter;

c) order departmental enquiry against erring Police officials who have connived to help the accused in the matter;

d) Any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed or given in favour of the petitioners to protect his right and interest."

The FIR discloses cheating in course of purchase of land and

also discloses case of making forged pattas, the dispute is private

in nature. The report at Annexure 3 reveals that the SP/SOG is

taking care of the fair investigation of the case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fair

investigation is not possible by the present Agency as initially

charge-sheet was proposed in the case, however, by the direction

of the Superior Authority investigator was changed and now FR is

proposed.

For the redressal of the aforesaid grievance, the petitioner

would have remedy under the law by filing protest petition etc. on

material collected during investigation. The Police is independent

to come to any particular conclusion based on the material on

record and the party would be at liberty to challenge the same.

(3 of 4) [CRLW-188/2023]

The Magistrate has ample power to monitor fair and impartial

investigation of the case.

In Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR

2008 SC 907, the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated in para 27 as

follows:-

"27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C."

The aforesaid view was reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao

Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors. reported

in 2016 (6) SCC 277.

Again in M. Subramaniam and Anr. Vs. S. Janaki and

Anr. reported in 2020 (16) SCC 728, a three Judges Bench of

Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the view taken in Sakiri Vasu

(supra).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not create a

complete embargo on the power of the Court under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. to monitor the investigation in appropriate cases.

(4 of 4) [CRLW-188/2023]