HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 85/2023

1.

Adv. Areef Mohammad Khan S/o Shri Nijamudeen, Aged

About 37 Years, R/o 89, Sanjay Nagar -C, Jhotwara,

Jaipur (Raj)

2.

Furkan Qureshi S/o Mohmmad Farook, Aged About 24

Years, R/o 2/95, Azad Nagar,jaipur (Raj)

----Petitioners

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

2.

Director General Of Police, Rajasthan.

3.

Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Commissionarate, Jaipur

(Raj).

4.

DCP, Jaipur-East, Jaipur

5.

Station House Officer, Police Station Jawahar Nagar,

Jaipur East Jaipur (Raj)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Majhar Hussain, Adv.

Mr. Narendra Singh, Adv.

Mr. Anirudh Tyagi, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP

Mr. Sunil Tyagi, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

08/02/2023

The petitioners have sought for a direction for fair

investigation of the FIR No.353/2022 registered with Police Station

Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur City East, for the offences under Sections

143, 323, 341, 308 and 384 of IPC.

It is not controverted, the petitioners have not approached

the Magistrate concerned for monitoring fair investigation of the

case.

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-85/2023]

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:-

“27. As we have already observed above, the

Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration

of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for

this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure

that the investigation is done properly (though he

cannot investigate himself). The High Court should

discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a

person has a grievance that his FIR has not been

registered by the police, or after being registered,

proper investigation has not been done by the police.

For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36

and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if

that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before

the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under

Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a

petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.”

The aforesaid view was reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao

Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors. reported

in 2016 (6) SCC 277.

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).

Considering the fact that the petitioner is not remediless for

redressal of his grievance, this Court is not inclined to entertain

this petition. The petitioner may approach the Magistrate

concerned.

Leaned Senior Counsel contends that this Court has already

taken cognizance in this matter and asked the Investigating

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-85/2023]

Officer to remain present in Court, to explain reason for pendency

of the investigation of this Court. Further direction to the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur (ACP) is for

monitoring the investigation of the case.

The aforesaid order would be in addition to the monitoring by

the Magistrate concerned. Therefore, this petition stands disposed

of with the aforesaid liberty and direction. All pending applications

are also disposed of.

The direction dated 10.01.2023 that the Investigating Officer

shall ensure that no harm is caused to the petitioners and their

family members so also the eye-witnesses by anti social elements

would continue to have force.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

Ashwani/-69