Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Pal v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC1 Mar 2012CRLMP/1632/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order dismissing a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging a Magistrate's direction to police to obtain a handwriting expert report and conclude investigation expeditiously. The Court held the direction was not illegal and restored the investigation process.

What did the court decide?

Misc. petition and stay petition disposed of; Investigation directed to be concluded with FSL report result.

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Pal Vs State and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

S. B. CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION NO. 1632/2010 (Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Pal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.)

¶3

DATE OF ORDER : 01.03.2012

¶4

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶5

Mr. B.S. Sandhu, for the petitioner. Mr. Aneesh Bhurat, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Himmat Singh, for the respondent No.2.

¶6

The present misc. petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 21.08.2010 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sri Karanpur in connection with FIR No.221/2002, registered at Police Station Sri Karanpur and the FR No.61/2002.

¶7

Learned counsel submits that the learned Magistrate whilst directing further investigation in the matter has directed the police to conclude the investigation expeditiously after procuring the report of the hand writing expert and then to file the result of the investigation forthwith. Learned counsel submits that the learned Magistrate has literally given directions to the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter in a particular manner and, as such, the order impugned is absolutely illegal.

¶8

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that in this case, the observation of the learned trial court is only to the effect that a proper report of the hand writing expert should be procured, as such, no interference is called for by this Court in the order impugned.

¶9

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned and given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar.

¶10

In the opinion of this Court, the direction of the learned Magistrate is only to the effect that the proper investigation should be done in the matter and it should not be read to be anything in excess

¶11

¶12

thereof. The direction of the learned Magistrate to have the report of the hand writing expert in relation to the disputed report cannot be said to be illegal.

¶13

Accordingly, the Investigating Officer is directed to submit result of the investigation after receiving the result of the FSL in relation to the disputed documents expeditiously. It is however made clear that the result of the investigation shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in the order impugned. Learned Public Prosecutor is directed to send back the case diary forthwith.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid, this misc. petition as well as stay petition stand disposed of.

¶15

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

¶16

ms rathore

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Pal v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Pal v. State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Singh and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Smt.Kamla Devi and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Ranveer Prajapat Vs State

Hira Singh Vs State and Anr.

Suraj Mal and Ors. Vs State and Anr.

Palvindra Singh Vs State and Anr.