SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 19024

Feliram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
(Petition) No. 2360/2023



##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2360/2023

Feliram Son of Shri Gangaram Meena, R/o Ralawas, Police

Station Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Gaurav Sharma

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG

assisted by Mr.J.S. Rathore, Add.GA.

Mr.Gaurav Gupta, Asst.GA.

Mr.Vinod Kumar Sharma &

Mr.Anirudh Singh

Mr.Vinod Kumar, Addl. SP, Lalsot

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

21/05/2026

1. By way of filing the instant petition, a challenge has been led

to the impugned order dated 23.09.2022, passed by the Judicial

Magistrate, Lalsot, District Dausa, by which the Final Report

‘Negative’ in F.I.R. No.21/2015, registered at the Police Station

Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa, has been accepted and the

protest petition submitted by the complainant-petitioner has been

rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of

murder of the complainant's brother, the aforesaid F.I.R. was

registered at the concerned Police Station, but without conducting

a fair and impartial investigation, Final Report ‘Negative’ was

submitted by the Investigating Officer before the concerned Court.

(Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 08:03:13 AM)

##PAGE2##

(2 of 5) [CRLMP-2360/2023]

Aggrieved by the aforesaid Final Report 'Negative', the

complainant-petitioner submitted a protest petition, which has

been rejected by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Lalsot, District

Dausa and the Final Report ‘Negative’ submitted by the

Investigating Officer has been accepted by the concerned Court by

passing the impugned order dated 23.09.2022.

3. Counsel submits that during the course of investigation, an

application was submitted by the Investigating Officer for

conducting the narcoanalysis test of the petitioner and the

petitioner has given his consent for the same. In spite of the

above, the concerned Authority has refused to conduct

narcoanalysis test upon the petitioner on the ground that during

the test, it was observed that the petitioner did not have fluency

in Hindi language. Counsel submits that this cannot be a reason

for denial of conducting narcoanalysis test. Counsel further

submits that the petitioner is still ready for narcoanalysis test,

therefore, a direction is sought to be issued to the Investigating

Officer to conduct a fair, proper and impartial investigation by

collecting additional evidence in the instant case. Under these

circumstances, a prayer has been made to quash the order

impugned and for passing necessary orders/ directions.

4. Per contra, learned GA-cum-AAG opposes the prayer and

submits that in case a direction is issued to the Investigating

Officer for conducting further investigation, the same would be

carried in a fair and impartial way which also includes conduction

of the narcoanalysis test of the petitioner.

5. The Investigating Officer Mr.Vinod Kumar, Additional

Superintendent of Police, Lalsot submits that in case any order of

(Downloaded on 27/05/2026 at 08:03:13 AM)

##PAGE3##

(3 of 5) [CRLMP-2360/2023]

further investigation is made by this Court, a fresh Investigating

Officer would be appointed for conducting further investigation.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and

perused the material available on record.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that at the time of submitting

the Final Report ‘Negative’, the Investigating Officer submitted

that in spite of making all the efforts, the unknown accused

persons were found to be untraceable. It has also been stated in

the Final Report ‘Negative’ that though the petitioner-Feliram has

consented for his narcoanalysis test, but the same could not be

conducted because he was not found to be fluent in Hindi

language.

8. It is quite shocking and surprising to entertain the aforesaid

submission and reasoning behind refusing to conduct

narcoanalysis test of the petitioner. If any witness is not

acquainted with a particular language or is not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top