The High Court dismissed the petitioner's criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking fair investigation, holding that the Magistrate has powers under Section 156(3) CrPC to monitor investigation, thus rendering the High Court plea an alternative 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.
[2024:RJ-JP:11300]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1006/2024
Rukmani Devi W/o Shri Hajari Lal, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Jawahar Colony, Ward No. 29, Mahua, Distt. Dausa At Present Tenant Tonk Phatak, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur East.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Kumar for Mr. Tapeshwar Pal Singh Parmar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
05/03/2024
(2 of 2) [CRLMP-1006/2024]
[2024:RJ-JP:11300]
(SUDESH BANSAL), J
SOURAV /43
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.PC for fair investigation should be allowed when an alternative remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC exists before the Magistrate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶17
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 2 SCC 409] · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rukmani Devi W/o Shri Hajari Lal
State Of Rajasthan
Sudes Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
