Dismissed

N.K.Meena Son of Ram Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Mar 2023CRLMP/1624/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the criminal miscellaneous petition seeking directions for fair investigation. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the Magistrate has ample powers to monitor investigation, making writ petitions unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

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

N.K.Meena Son of Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/004570]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1624/2023

¶4

N.k.meena Son Of Ram Singh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Mungska, Delhi Road, Alwar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

Dy. Commissioner Of Police Jaipur City, East

¶9

S.h.o. Ps Malviya Nagar, Jaipur City East.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

¶13

Order

¶14

21/03/2023

¶15

Heard the petitioner-present in person as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State respondents.

¶16

The petitioner has approached this court for issuing direction for fair investigation of FIR No.0027/2023 registered with Police Station Malviya Nagar, District-Jaipur City (East) for offences under Sections 420, 406, 323, 341 and 120-B of IPC.

¶17

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.

[2023/RJJP/004570]

[CRLMP-1624/2023]

(2 of 3)

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:-

¶22

“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.”

¶23

The aforesaid view was reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao

¶24

Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors . reported

¶25

in 2016 (6) SCC 277.

¶26

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).

¶27

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.

¶28