The court emphasized that seeking a fair investigation is a fundamental right, necessitating the transfer of cases to an independent agency when bias or influence is suspected.

Order :

1. The instant Criminal Miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as “BNSS”) praying for a direction to be issued to the respondents to conduct fair, proper, impartial and expeditious investigation in case arising out of FIR NO. 234/2024 Police Station, Kareda and in FIR No. 202/2024 Police Station Kareda, District Bhilwara. It is further prayed that the investigation be transferred from the State Police to any other independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter to be refered as “CBI”).

2. Heard the petitioner, Parmeshwar Ramlal and N.S. Chundawat, Dy.G.A., public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

3. Without looking into the particulars and contents of the FIR, and without delving into whether the allegations leveled in the FIR are false or true, the concern of this Court is to ascertain why the investigation should not be entrusted to the CBI, especially when one party is expressing his complete distrust in the state agency, asserting that a fair and impartial investigation is not being conducted, and such assertions are not vague, bald, or mere conjecture but are supported by substantive grounds, drawing the attention of this Court to specific incidents. Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate to clarify that the controversy arising from the present FIR is neither complex nor beyond the competence of the State Police rather, such matters are routinely dealt with by police stations across the State. The offence in question is triable by a Magistrate, and investigations of this nature are frequently conducted even by officers of the Head Constable cadre in the normal course of their duties. It is not a case involving intricate mystery or requiring the specialized assistance of a premier investigative agency; rather, it appears to be a simple matter. The core issue before this Court pertains to the serious apprehension raised by the complainant that the State Police would not conduct fair and impartial investigation due to the influence wielded by the accused. The high-ranking position of a close relative of the accused, coupled with the fact that any Investigating Officer assigned to this case would be a subordinate of the accused’s brother, presents a matter of grave concern before this Court. The multiple instances cited by the victim, demonstrating the accused’s influence over the investigative process, cannot be disregarded.

4. The petitioner himself appeared and explained the entire sequence of events to this Court. I was deeply astounded to learn that the Investigating Officer, the Circle Officer of Aasind, who was keeping the file with him since last six months is unaware of the fact that the Additional Director General of Police of the State of Rajasthan is the brother of the accused. The petitioner vehemently contends that he submitted a complaint to the SHO, Kareda, Bhilwara, regarding the theft of goods from his mines; however, no FIR was registered. Subsequently, the petitioner sent emails to the DGP Jaipur, IG, SP Bhilwara, and SHO Kareda, but no action was taken. In response to this inaction, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, who ordered lodging of FIR and carrying investigation but despite several repeated rounds of the petitioner, the FIR was not registered which constrained the petitioner to move a contempt petition and whereupon the learned judicial Magistrate summoned the SHO and warn him to comply the order lest contempt shall be issued. Whereafter, in one other matter, the FIR was not recorded by the SHO and the concerned SP also did not paid