Nitin Bhandari v. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 64/2023 Nitin Bhandari S/o Dr. Dinesh Bhandari, Aged 39 Years, ResidentOf House No. K-29, Income Tax Colony, Durgapura, Tonk Road,Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Director General Of Police, Phq, Jaipur. 3. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (Raj). 4. Sho Police Station, Airport, Jaipur East, Jaipur (Raj). 5. Manager, Ground Staff, Indigo Airlines, Jaipur Airport,Jaipur.Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner in person with Mr. Sanchit Tamra For Respondent(s): Mr. Prashant Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR Order 01/02/2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of thecourt to order dated 06.01.2023 whereby Investigating Officerwas asked to remain present in court alongwith the case diary butInvestigating Officer is not present. The petitioner has approached this court for issuing directionfor fair investigation of FIR No. 134/2022 registered with policestation Airport, Jaipur for offences under Sections 379, 406, 407and 120-B of IPC. Learned Magistrate has ample powers to monitor fairinvestigation of a case and The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently stated that instead of invoking jurisdiction underArticle 226 of The Constitution of India or under Section 482 ofCr.P.C, the aggrieved person should approach the learnedMagistrate itself who has got ample power under Cr.P.C to do theneedful. In Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR2008 SC 907, the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated in para 27 asfollows:- “27. As we have already observed above, theMagistrate has very wide powers to direct registrationof an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and forthis purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensurethat the investigation is done properly (though hecannot investigate himself). The High Court shoulddiscourage the practice of filing a writ petition orpetition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because aperson has a grievance that his FIR has not beenregistered by the police, or after being registered,proper investigation has not been done by the police.For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and ifthat is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. beforethe Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint underSection 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or apetition under Section 482, Cr.P.C.” The aforesaid view was reiterated inSudhir Bhaskarrao Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors. reported in 2016 (6) SCC 277. Again inM. Subramaniam and Anr. Vs. S. Janaki andAnr.reported in 2020 (16) SCC 728, a three Judges Bench ofHon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the view taken in Sakiri Vasu(supra). Considering the fact that the petitioner is not remediless forredressal of his grievance, this court is not inclined to entertain this petition. The petitioner may approach the Magistrateconcerned. With the aforesaid observation, the instant petition standsdisposed off. If the petitioner approaches the Magistrate concerned, thelearned Judicial Magistrate shall proceed according to lawexpeditiously. (BIRENDRA KUMAR),J ashu /26