Disposed

Sunita Devi Bairwa W/O Shri Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Dec 2022CRLMP/1679/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Bench Criminal Miscellany petition sought directions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for fair and expeditious investigation in an FIR concerning cheating. The High Court directed police authorities to consider the petitioner's representation and ensure proper investigation in accordance with Sakiri Vasu principles.

What did the court decide?

Direction to concerned Investigating Officer/Superintendent of Police to consider the petitioner's representation and ensure fair investigation within law.

Sunita Devi Bairwa W/O Shri Om Prakash Vs State… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1679/2021

¶3

Sunita Devi Bairwa W/o Shri Om Prakash, R/o Geejgarh, Sikrai, District Dausa.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶7

Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.

¶8

The Superintendent Of Police, Dausa.

¶9

S.h.o Police Station Sikandra, District Dausa.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

12/12/2022

¶15

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that a direction be issued to the respondents to conduct fair, proper, impartial and expeditious investigation in case arising out of FIR No. 148/2019, registered at P.S. Sikandra, District Dausa for the offence under Section 420 IPC.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite disclosing commission of cognizable offence, no heed is being paid by the investigating agency as till date no effective action has been taken by the police. He, therefore, prays for issuing directions for fair, impartial and expeditious investigation in this matter.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CRLMP-1679/2021]

¶19

Seeking fair, impartial and expeditious investigation is a fundamental right of a person/complainant/accused. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the prayer made by the petitioner/complainant, this Court is of the view that the petitioner must proceed under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State Of U.P. And Others reported in 2008 (2) SCC 409 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down as under:-

¶20

“15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.”

¶21

“30. It may be further mentioned that in view of Section 36 Cr.P.C. if a person is aggrieved that a proper investigation has not been made by the officer-incharge of the concerned police station, such aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police or other police officer superior in rank to the officer-incharge of the police station and such superior officer can, if he so wishes, do the investigation vide CBI vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2001 (3) SCC 333 (vide para 11), R.P. Kapur vs. S.P. Singh AIR 1961 SC 1117 etc. Also, the State Government is competent to direct the Inspector General, Vigilance to take over the investigation of a cognizable offence registered at a police station vide State of Bihar vs. A.C. Saldanna (supra).”

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor assures this Court that fair and transparent investigation shall be made, in case the petitioner/complainant submits a representation along with all relevant documents before the concerned Investigating Officer/Superintendent of Police within a period of 2 weeks from today, the same shall be considered as per law.

¶23

The present misc. petition is thus disposed of with direction to the concerned Investigating Officer/Superintendent of Police to

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CRLMP-1679/2021]

¶26

consider the representation of the petitioner/complainant and ensure fair investigation in accordance with law as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra). Stay application and all pending applications (if any), also stand disposed of.

¶27

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶28

HEENA GANDHI /4

Sunita Devi Bairwa W/O Shri Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi Bairwa W/O Shri Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meghnath S/O Kanhiram @ Kanhaiyalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkawar Son of Late Ganpatnath Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajayraj Singh S/O Shambhusingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sh. Brijesh Kumar Gupta S/O Sh. Chandbihari Lal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Suman Dhobi W/O Radhakishan Dhobi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Nasardeen S/O Abdul Rahman, Vs State of Rajasthan