Sanjay Goyal Son Of Shri Ramgopal ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:14838)
2024 Latest Caselaw 2305 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Sanjay Goyal Son Of Shri Ramgopal ... vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:14838) on 27 March, 2024

Author: Anil Kumar Upman

Bench: Anil Kumar Upman

[2024:RJ-JP:14838]

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                      BENCH AT JAIPUR

          S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1768/2024

Sanjay Goyal Son Of Shri Ramgopal Agarwal, Resident Of Firm
M/s Maliram Madholal Patangwale, Shop No. 319, Chandpole
Bazar, Jaipur, Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur (Raj).
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Avinash Vyas
                                  Mr. Devendra Singh
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. M.K Sheoran, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

                                       Order

27/03/2024

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

by the petitioner against the order dated 21.05.2022 passed by

Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, No. 07, Jaipur Metropolitan-II in

Criminal case no. 299/2022, whereby application filed by the

petitioner under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for conducting further

investigation in FIR No. 18/2021 registered at Police Station

Kotwali (Jaipur) District Jaipur City (North) for the offences

punishable under Sections 420 and 409 of IPC was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proper

investigation was not conducted by the Investigating Officer. It is

submitted that without recording statement of persons who were

acquainted with the allegation levelled in the FIR, Investigating

Officer submitted the negative final report. Learned Trial

Magistrate also dismissed the application without giving any

cogent reason.

[2024:RJ-JP:14838] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-1768/2024]

3. Learned State Counsel oppose the prayer made by learned

counsel for the petitioner. He submits that after thorough

investigation no case was found and it was opined that there is

civil dispute between the parties, therefore, negative final report

was submitted by the Investigating Agency. It is submitted that

while dismissing the said application Trial Magistrate has stated

that no specific facts and points have been mentioned by the

complainant in his application filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C for

conducting further investigation. He submits that complainant has

no right to file an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for

conducting further investigation and only on an application being

filed by the Investigating Agency, directions can be given for

conducting further investigation. Counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rita

Nag versus State of West Bengal reported in (2009) 9 SCC

129.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

especially the fact that after thorough investigation negative Final

Report was submitted and bare perusal of the application filed by

the petitioner under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. does not reveal any

good ground to direct the investigating agency to conduct further

investigation and so also keeping in view the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rita Nag (Supra),

complainant has no right to file an application under Section

173(8) Cr.P.C. for conducting further investigation and only on an

application being filed by the Investigating Agency, directions can

be given for conducting further investigation

[2024:RJ-JP:14838] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-1768/2024]

5. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the order passed

by learned trial Magistrate. Thus, in my considered opinion, no

interference is called for by this Court while exercising the powers

under Section 482 CrPC in this misc. petition.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Misc. Petition stands dismissed.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

Lalit Mohan/29

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)