The Magistrate has the authority to determine the sufficiency and adequacy of the investigation material and can refuse to direct further investigation if the investigation was conducted justly and fairly.

ORDER

1. The petitioner is the complainant of the case. He filed a complaint against the respondent No.2 Ram Singh and the respondent No.3 Narayan Singh in the competent court on 30.09.2016, which was forwarded to the Police Station Jaisalmer, where FIR No.400/2016 came to be registered against the accused respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 406 and 120-B IPC. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a negative final report finding the allegations of the complainant to be false. The complainant appeared in the trial court and filed an application under Section 173(8) CrPC praying for a direction to send the matter to the Investigating Officer for conducting further investigation. The trial court rejected the said application by a detailed reasoned order dated 04.08.2018, which was unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner by filing a revision, which came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer vide order dated 13.09.2021. These two orders are assailed by the petitioner complainant in this petition under Section 482 CrPC.

2. I have heard and considered the submissions advance at bar and have gone through the impugned orders. The prerogative of examining sufficiency/adequacy of the material collected by the Investigating Officer alongwith the Final Report under Section 173 CrPC is unquestionably of the Magistrate concerned. If the Magistrate finds that the Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation in a just and fair manner and no material evidence was omitted/ignored, then the complainant cannot compel the court to direct further investigation in the matter. The learned Magistrate, while considering the application filed by the petitioner complainant under Section 173(8) CrPC concluded that the respondent accused Narayan Singh had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner and that the FIR in question appeared to have been filed purely as a measure of counter-blast to the said complaint.

3. In this background, I am of the firm opinion that the learned trial court was absolutely justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 173 (8) CrPC by a well-reasoned order dated 04.08.2018, which has been affirmed in revision by the revisional court by the order dated 13.09.2021. Two courts of competent jurisdiction have recorded concurrent findings of facts while dismissing the application filed by the petitioner as well as the revision. Hence, I am not inclined to exercise the inherent powers conferred upon this court by Section 482 CrPC so as to interfere in the impugned orders, which ex facie do not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or abuse of process of court so as to warrant interference therein.

4. Hence, the instant criminal miscellaneous petition fails and is hereby dismissed as being devoid of merit. The stay petition is also dismissed.