Dismissed

Vishram Jat S/O Shri Narayan Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Mar 2023CRLMP/1304/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition seeking direction for fair investigation into an FIR. The Court held that the petitioner is not remediless and should approach the Magistrate concerned, citing Supreme Court precedents favoring Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. over writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; petitioner directed to approach the concerned Magistrate.

Vishram Jat S/O Shri Narayan Jat Vs State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1304/2023

¶3

Vishram Jat S/o Shri Narayan Jat, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Motipura, Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, Nasirabad District Ajmer (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Imran Khan, PP

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

¶10

Order

¶11

13/03/2023

¶12

No one appears for the petitioner.

¶13

Heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

Learned lawyers are not attending/co-operating with the Court in judicial proceedings since last several weeks, though, they have no grievance against the Court administration.

¶15

The Court is aware of the dictum decided in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45 that such non-cooperation in judicial proceeding is not only punitive one rather the Court is empowered to proceed in the listed judicial matters according to the law even in absence of the parties and their Advocates.

¶16

The petitioner has approached this court for issuing direction for fair investigation of FIR No.0290/2022 registered with Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, District-Ajmer for offences under Sections 168, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 384 of IPC.

¶17

[CRLMP-1304/2023]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

Learned Magistrate has ample powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure to monitor fair investigation of a case and The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently stated that instead of invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the aggrieved person should approach the learned Magistrate itself who has got ample power under Cr.P.C to do the needful.

¶20

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:-

¶21

“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.”

¶22

The aforesaid view was reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao

¶23

Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors . reported in 2016 (6) SCC 277.

¶24

Again in M. Subramaniam and Anr. Vs. S. Janaki and

¶25

Anr. reported in 2020 (16) SCC 728, a three Judges Bench of

¶26

[CRLMP-1304/2023]

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the view taken in Sakiri Vasu (supra).

¶29

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.

¶30

With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition stands disposed of.

¶31

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶32

If the petitioner approaches the Magistrate concerned, the learned Judicial Magistrate shall proceed according to law expeditiously.

¶33

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶34

Sunita/11

Vishram Jat S/O Shri Narayan Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishram Jat S/O Shri Narayan Jat 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

Sunil Udaieya S/O Shri Ram Dayal Udaieya, Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Kumar Sharma S/O Mangilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Eram Bano D/O Mo. Murtaja, Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Meena S/O Shri Jagdish Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Shabana Banu D/O Aalam Ali Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan

Avnish Kumar Meena S/O Shri Pappu Lal Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan