Disposed¶24

Rafiq S/O Fazlu, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2026CRLMP/5911/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRLMP 5911/2025, Rajasthan High Court Jaipur, Justice Anil Kumar Upman, order dated 05/01/2026; Rafiq v. State of Rajasthan & others; Section 528 B.N.S.S.; FIR No.333/2025 PS Mahuwa District Dausa; Sections 316(2) & 318(4) BNS 2023; Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. AIR 2008 SC 907; Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal 2003 (2) SCC 45; Krishnakant Tamrakar (2018) 17 SCC 27; fair and impartial investigation; Magistrate's power to monitor investigation; remedy before Magistrate not High Court; advocate strike/abstention; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief granted; petition disposed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate to inquire about the progress of the investigation. ¶24

Rafiq S/O Fazlu, Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief granted; petition disposed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate to inquire about the progress of the investigation.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should be issued for conducting a fair and impartial investigation in FIR No.333/2025 registered at Police Station Mahuwa, District Dausa, given the petitioner's allegation of police inaction. +1 more

¶19

Ratio / Principle

In view of the observations and directions in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P., the Judicial Magistrate has very wide powers to enquire about the investigation and to monitor the investigation to ensure that it is done properly.

¶21

Key takeaways

The High Court should discourage the practice of filing writ petitions or petitions under Section 528 B.N.S.S. merely because a person has a grievance that investigation has not been done properly by the police.ratio¶21
For the grievance that investigation has not been done properly by the police, the remedy lies before the concerned Magistrate.ratio¶21
In view of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal and Krishnakant Tamrakar, since advocates were abstaining from work, the Court deemed it proper to pass order on merits notwithstanding the bar abstention.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under Section 528 B.N.S.S. by an informant alleging police inaction on FIR No.333/2025 (Police Station Mahuwa, District Dausa), registered for offences under Sections 316(2) & 318(4) of BNS, 2023, seeking a direction for fair and impartial investigation. Following Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2008 SC 907, the Court held that the Judicial Magistrate has very wide powers to enquire into and monitor investigation; that the High Court should discourage petitions under Section 528 B.N.S.S. filed merely on a grievance of improper police investigation; and that the remedy for such grievance lies before the concerned Magistrate. Finding no force in the petition, the Court disposed of it and the stay application, leaving the petitioner free to approach the Magistrate. The order was passed on merits despite advocates abstaining from work, in view of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (2003 (2) SCC 45) and Krishnakant Tamrakar ((2018) 17 SCC 27) on the illegality of advocate strikes.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:32]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5911/2025

¶4

Rafiq S/o Fazlu, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Kabristan Road, Mammu Colony Mandi Ke Piche, Mahuwa District Dausa (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs Govt. Secretariat Jaipur.

¶8

Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.

¶9

Superintendent Of Police, Dausa District Dausa (Raj.). 4. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Mahuwa, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rafiq present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶13

Order

¶14

05/01/2026

¶15

In “Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr.” reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or to give a call for boycott of Courts. Calls given by Bar Association or Bar Council for such purpose cannot require the Court to adjourn the matters. In the case of “Krishnakant Tamrakar versus the State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in (2018) 17 SCC 27, it has been held that strike by advocates is in violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same tantamount to contempt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the office bearers are liable to be removed from the office for passing resolution for

¶16

(2 of 3) [CRLMP-5911/2025]

¶17

[2026:RJ-JP:32]

¶18

strike. In view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (Supra) and Krishnakant Tamrakar (Supra), since the advocates are abstaining from work today, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits.

¶19

The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the petitioner seeking direction for conducting fair and impartial investigation in FIR No.333/2025 registered at Police Station Mahuwa, District Dausa (Raj.).

¶20

Petitioner filed the aforementioned FIR against the accused persons named in the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2) & 318(4) of BNS, 2023. It is the case of the petitioner that police authorities have not taken any action against the accused person and thus appropriate direction be given for fair and impartial investigation of the FIR.

¶21

This Court is of the opinion that in view of the observations made and directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2008 SC 907 , the Judicial Magistrate has very wide powers to enquire about the investigation and for monitoring the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly. Apex Court has further observed that the High Court should discourage the practice of filing Writ Petitions or petitions under Section 528 B.N.S.S simply because a person has a grievance that investigation has not been done properly by the Police. For this grievance, the remedy lies before the concerned Magistrate.

¶22

[2026:RJ-JP:32]

¶23

(3 of 3) [CRLMP-5911/2025]

¶24

In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court, I do not find any force in the Criminal Misc. Petition and the same is accordingly disposed. Stay application stands disposed.

¶25

However, petitioner would be free to approach the concerned Magistrate to inquire about the progress of the investigation.

¶26

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶27

GAUTAM JAIN /401

Rafiq S/O Fazlu, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafiq S/O Fazlu, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammad Abid Son of Rafiq Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikash Meena S/O Ramkesh Meena Vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Lokesh Choudhary Son of Vijendra Singh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shahrukh @ Sheru S/O Mohd. Yasin Vs State of Rajasthan

Rambabu S/O Shri Bhairu Sahay Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinit Bharadwaj S/O Girish Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan