Petitioner sought compliance of a co-ordinate Bench order for proper investigation. Court recorded ACB report finding allegations untrue. Enquiry officer directed to provide result within a week for appropriate remedy.
Enquiry Officer to supply result of preliminary enquiry within a week; complainant allowed appropriate remedy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 37 / 2018
IN
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4131 / 2017
Vinod Kumar Bagdiya S/o Shri Nand Lal Bagdiya, R/o Nechhwa, Distt. Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Verma For State : Mr. Aladeen Khan, Public Prosecutor
Investigating Officer : Mr. Prithvi Raj Meena Additional Superintendent of Police, ACP Sikar with S.H.O. Nechhwa
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BANWARI LAL SHARMA
Order
21/02/2018
The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No. 4131/2017 (Vinod Kumar Bagdiya vs. State of Rajasthan And Ors.) which was decided on 14th September, 2017 passed following order :-
“;kph&ifjoknh dh vksj ls egkfujh{kd] Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/kd C;wjks] t;iqj ds le{k izLrqr f’kdk;r la[;k ,p&1327@16 esa fu"i{k ,oa Rofjr vuqla/kku djus ds funsZ’k nsus gsrq ;g QkStnkjh fofo/k ;kfpdk /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk esa izLrqr dh xbZ gSA
(2 of 3)
[CRLMA-37/2018]
lquk x;kA leLr rF;ksa ij fopkj fd;k x;kA bl QkStnkjh fofo/k ;kfpdk esa pkgs x;s vuqrks"k ,oa ekeys ds rF;ksa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq;s ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd dks funsZf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd lacaf/kr vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dks funsZf’kr djs fd bl ekeys esa fu"i{k ,oa Rofjr vuqla/kku iw.kZ dj] vuqla/kku ifj.kke] bl vkns’k dh izfr izkIr gksus ds i’Pkkr rhu ekg dh vof/k esa l{ke U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djsA ;fn vuqla/kku ifj.kke ls ;kph Lo;a dks O;fFkr eglwl djrk gS rks l{ke U;k;ky; esa izksVsLV fiVh’ku vFkok fof/k esa miyC/k vU; mipkj ds rgr dk;Zokgh djus dks Lora= jgsxkA
rnuqlkj ;g QkStnkjh fofo/k ;kfpdk ,oa layXu LFkxu izkFkZuk i= fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
dk;kZy; }kjk vkns’k dh izfr ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd dks iznku dh tk,A”
Now, after filing the present application, applicant- petitioner prayed for investigation in the present matter after transferring it to C.B.I. or to some independent Investigating Agency and also prayed that respondents may be directed to comply the order of co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 14th September, 2017.
Learned counsel for the applicant- petitioner submits that vide order dated 14th September, 2017, three months time was given for completing the investigation and for filing the result of investigation before the concerned Court but same has not been complied yet, therefore the order dated 14th September, 2017 may be directed to be complied by the respondents in true spirit.
Mr. Prithvi Raj Meena Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB, Sikar with S.H.O. Nechhwa are present in person who submitted factual report of the matter through learned Additional Government Advocate cum Public Prosecutor which is taken on record.
As per instructions of aforesaid Officers, learned Public Prosecutor submits that on report of applicant-petitioner FIR was not registered only preliminary enquiry was initiated.
According to the instructions of S.H.O. Nechhwa, District Sikar the P. enquiry was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr. Vinod
(3 of 3)
[CRLMA-37/2018]
Kumar, RPS who reached on the conclusion that the allegations levelled in the complaint are of civil nature and the allegations levelled against the police officials are not true.
Thereafter, on representation of present petitioner the enquiry was transferred to Additional Superintendent of Police, ACB, Sikar.
Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that as per report submitted by the ACB, Sikar the allegations levelled by applicantpetitioner were not found true and it was proposed that the report be closed.
Since, no FIR was lodged, therefore, it is not necessary to submit closer report before the concerned court.
However, enquiry Officer is directed to supply the result of preliminary enquiry to the applicant-petitioner within a week from today and it will be open for the complainant to avail appropriate remedy against the aforesaid report, if advised so.
The application stands disposed of accordingly.
(BANWARI LAL SHARMA)J.
S. Kumawat/08
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order directed for proper investigation under Section 482 CrPC was complied with.
Whether the preliminary enquiry report and directions regarding law‑officer‑advocate and closing report need to be followed.
Whether the enquiry result submitted by the ACB is valid and appropriate for the petitioner.
Vinod Kumar Bagdiya
State of Rajasthan Through P.P.
Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau, Rajasthan
Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau
Superintendent of Police, Sikar
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Laxmangarh
BANWARI LAL SHARMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
