Tejpal Choudhary Son of Shri Anandilal Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

Tejpal Choudhary Son of Shri Anandilal Vs State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Permission to withdraw the misc. application with liberty to approach the jurisdictional magistrate to ventilate the grievance of incomplete investigation in FIR No.12/2015; pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the investigation in FIR No.12/2015 registered at Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur City (South) for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 447 of IPC, incomplete despite this Court's order dated 27.03.2024 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1431/2024, could be pursued in the instant miscellaneous application. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Permission is granted to the petitioner to withdraw the misc. application, with liberty to approach the jurisdictional magistrate for ventilating his grievance regarding non-completion of investigation in FIR No.12/2015.

Key takeaways

The instant misc. application stands disposed of with the liberty as prayed for by the petitioner.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), single Judge (Sudesh Bansal, J.), order dated 07/10/2025 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 54/2025 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1431/2024. Petitioner Tejpal Choudhary complained that investigation in FIR No.12/2015 registered at Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur City (South) for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 447 IPC had not been completed despite this Court's order dated 27.03.2024 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1431/2024. Counsel sought permission to withdraw the misc. application with liberty to approach the jurisdictional magistrate, relying on Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409 (holding that Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include the Magistrate's power to order registration of an FIR and a proper investigation), whose principles the Apex Court followed and reiterated in M. Subramaniam Vs. S. Janaki, (2020) 16 SCC 728. Permission was granted; the application was disposed of with the liberty prayed for, and pending applications were disposed of. The quoted Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. exposition is the Apex Court's ruling reproduced herein, not this Court's independent holding.

[2025:RJ-JP:40580]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 54/2025 In

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1431/2024

Tejpal Choudhary Son Of Shri Anandilal, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Boyatwala, In Front Of Benad Railway Station, Benad Road, Jaipur (Raj).

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. The Through Officer, Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur (South).

Rajendra Agarwal, Minister Ganpati Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Registered No. 2668/l, Jaipur, Nadi Ka Phatak, Benad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Saurabh Tripathi for
	Mr.	Mukesh Pal Jadoun
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vivek Choudhary,PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

07/10/2025

By moving instant misc. application, petitioner has raised a grievance that investigation in FIR No.12/2015 registered at Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur City (South) for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467,468, 471 and 447 of IPC, has not been completed so far, despite order dated 27.03.2024 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1431/2024.

Counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this misc. application with liberty to approach before the jurisdictional magistrate, for ventilating of his grievance, in view of judgment

(2 of 2)

[2025:RJ-JP:40580]

[CRLMA-54/2025]

delivered by the Apex Court in Case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 2 SCC 409], wherein it was held that:-

“17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.”

The above principles of law have been followed and reiterated by the Apex Court in case of M. Subramaniam Vs. S.

Janaki [(2020) 16 SCC 728] .

Permission is granted.

Accordingly, instant misc. application is disposed of with the liberty as prayed for.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

Sachin/98-s