Petitioner sought directions for fair investigation via High Court. Bench advised petitioner to approach Magistrate under CrPC provisions instead. Petition disposed dismissing plea for writ jurisdiction.
None, petition disposed advising petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate.
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 (Petition) No. 442/2023
Sunil Udaieya S/o Shri Ram Dayal Udaieya, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 502, Katewa Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR
Order
03/03/2023
No one appears for the petitioner.
Heard learned Public Prosecutor.
Learned lawyers are not attending/co-operating with the Court in judicial proceedings since last more than one week, though, they have no grievance against the Court administration.
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.
[CRLMP-442/2023]
(2 of 3)
The petitioner has approached this court for issuing direction for fair investigation of FIR No.401/2022 registered with police station Mansarovar, Jaipur for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC.
Learned Magistrate has ample power 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.
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:-
“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.”
[CRLMP-442/2023]
(3 of 3)
The aforesaid view was reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao
Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors . reported in 2016 (6) SCC 277.
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).
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.
With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition stands disposed off.
If the petitioner approaches the Magistrate concerned, the learned Judicial Magistrate shall proceed according to law expeditiously.
(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J
ashu /13
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition or Section 482 petition for investigating fair oversight of a criminal investigation instead of advising approach to the Magistrate.
What is the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved person when the police investigation is alleged to be unfair or inadequate.
Whether the High Court is empowered to proceed with judicial matters in the absence of the petitioner who is not appearing for legal help.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India & Anr.Referred¶17
(2003) 2 SCC 45 · Who else cites this
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.Referred¶22
AIR 2008 SC 907 · Who else cites this
Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors.Referred¶27
2016 (6) SCC 277 · Who else cites this
M. Subramaniam and Anr. Vs. S. Janaki and Anr.Referred¶28
2020 (16) SCC 728 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Sunil Udaieya
State Of Rajasthan
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Saini
Dr. Prabha Saini
BIRENDRA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
