HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S. B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 5873/2022

Jai Singh S/o Dan Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 26,

Bapunagar Vistar, Pali (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State of Rajasthan through PP

2.

Smt. Reshma Devi W/o Deepa Ram Rao, R/o 99, Mastan

Baba Colony, Pali (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Counsel assisted

by Mr. Dinesh Kumar Godara

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. S.K. Bhati, Public Prosecutor.

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

16/09/2022

1.

The petition in hands, which has been preferred invoking this

Court’s powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”), lays challenge

to order dated 07.01.2022, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial

Magistrate (Communal Riots), Pali, (hereinafter referred to as “the

trial court”), whereby the trial court has issued the direction for

further investigation.

2.

Facts apropos the case in hands are that the respondent

No. 2 filed a complaint, in furtherance whereof F.I.R. No. 24 dated

14.01.2021 came to be registered in Police Station Kotwali, Pali.

3.

After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed a negative

final report stating that no offence as alleged by the complainant

has been committed.

4.

Aggrieved of the negative final report, the respondent No. 2-

complainant filed a protest petition under Section 173(8) of the

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-5873/2022]

Code, which petition came to be disposed of by the trial court vide

its impugned order dated 07.01.2022 and further investigation

was directed.

5.

While directing further investigation, the trial court found

that case diary contained a supervisory note written by the

Superintendent of Police, Pali, in which he had directed the

Investigating Officer to send disputed documents and undisputed

documents for forensic test.

6.

While passing the impugned order, the trial court has not

only rejected final report but also directed the Investigating Officer

to send the documents, which were filed by the accused persons

in the Municipal Council in relation whereof, the complainant has

levelled allegation of forged signatures and thumb impressions.

7.

Mr. Balia, learned Senior Counsel argued that the trial court

has erred in directing the Investigating Officer to get FSL report in

relation to the documents. He highlighted that during the

investigation, the complainant and her husband themselves had

admitted to have entered into an agreement to sell and that there

are no documents, which can be said to be forged.

8.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the

material available on record.

9.

On perusal of the F.I.R., this Court finds that the complainant

has made a specific allegation that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have

used a power of attorney purportedly executed by the co-tenant

Abdul Rehman, though, he had passed away on 14.06.2014. It

has been asserted by the complainant that accused persons have

filed forged documents with forged signatures of Abdul Rashid,

Fakir Mohammad, Mohammad Ismail and Niyaj Mohammad. But

the charge-sheet does not indicate as to whether complainant’s

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-5873/2022]

allegation in relation to use of power of attorney of Abdul Rehman

after his death (14.06.2014) was valid or not. The Investigating

Officer has also not given any finding regarding signatures of

above referred four persons. This being the position, the

investigation made by the Investigating Officer cannot be said to

be complete and correct, more particularly, when the

Superintendent of Police, Pali himself had directed the

Investigating Officer to get FSL report in relation to contentious

documents.

10.

By way of impugned order, the trial court has directed the

Investigating Officer to get FSL of the documents, which he was

otherwise obliged to do.

11.

Without any compelling reasons or valid justification