RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Birendra Kumar, J.
Nawal Kishore Dangyach - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 188 of 2023 Connected with S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2444 of 2019
Decided On : 10-02-2023
Investigation - Criminal Procedure - Article 226, Sections 36, 154(3), 156(3), 200, 482 - The court emphasized the powers of the Magistrate to ensure fair investigations and the appropriate legal remedies available to aggrieved parties, reinforcing the independence of police investigations.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief for a fair investigation into a land purchase cheating case, alleging police bias and improper handling of the investigation, including a proposed negative final report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had adequate legal remedies available, including filing a protest petition, and noted that the Magistrate has the authority to monitor investigations without requiring intervention from the High Court.
Issues: Whether the High Court should intervene in the investigation process and direct a fair investigation by the police.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the Magistrate has wide powers to ensure proper investigations and that the High Court should not interfere unless extraordinary circumstances are presented.
Result: The petition was disposed of with liberty to approach the Magistrate for a fair investigation.
ORDER
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 188/2023:-
1. The petitioner has sought for following reliefs in this petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India.
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.'
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. The Magistrate has ample power to monitor fair and impartial investigation of the case.
6. 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:-
7. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors. reported in 2016 (6) SCC 277.
8. 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).
9. 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.
10. The Court does not find any extra ordinary case or situation wherein monitoring is required by this Court, specially when the Magistrate has not been approached for monitoring nor there is any material that the Magistrate is not properly monitoring the investigation. Other reliefs are refused in the facts and circumstances of the case.
11. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned for fair investigation.
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2444/2019:-
12. Let respondent No.2 f
M. Subramaniam and Anr. vs. S. Janaki and Anr. reported in 2020 (16) SCC 728
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 907
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Rao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors. reported in 2016 (6) SCC 277
The availability of an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for seeking fair investigation and relief from harassment.
The court affirmed the Magistrate's authority to direct police investigations when they are inadequate, ensuring accountability in the investigative process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for seeking directions for a fair investigation in a criminal case.
The petitioner should avail the alternative efficacious remedy under the Cr.P.C. before approaching the High Court with a writ petition.
:NON REGISTRATION OF FIR - Complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie ....
The High Court should avoid entertaining writ petitions when an alternative remedy exists under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.