Girdhari Ram @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC is preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the

Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore, District Jalore (for short ‘the trial court’), whereby it has rejected the application filed by the petitioner for

directing police authorities to conduct further investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR No.35/2014 lodged at Police Station, Jhab, District

Jalore, wherein the police have filed negative Final Report No.87/2018, which is pending consideration before the trial court.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore on 10.01.2014 while

contending that he is Up-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Deora, whereas Pukhraj Jain is the Sarpanch of that Gram Panchayat.

It is mentioned in the complaint that certain development works were carried out by the Gram Panchayat in the month of February, 2011, however,

Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat -Â Pukh Raj Jain made forged entries in the muster-rolls regarding labourers and also made entries of a labourer in

two muster-rolls for the same period.

It is alleged that Pukhraj Jain prepared forged muster-roll and on the basis of forged entries in it, he received the amount of wages of the labourers

and misappropriated the same. It is also alleged by the petitioner in the complaint that he made several complaints against Pukhraj Jain to the

authorities but no action was taken by them and therefore, he is filing this complaint.

The said complaint filed by the petitioner before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore was forwarded to the police for investigation under

section 156(3) CrPC, the Police Station, Jhab registered FIR No.35/2014 for the offences punishable under sections 409, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC

against Pukhraj Jain.

The police have now filed negative Final Report No.87/2018 before the trial court and at this stage, the petitioner moved an application for directing

the police authorities to conduct further investigation, which came to be rejected by the trial court while observing that the petitioner has failed to

convince it as to on what point, he wants further investigation by the police. The trial court was also of the opinion that the fact of rejection of the

anticipatory bail of the accused and the allegation of connivance of S.H.O., Police Station, Jhab with Pukhraj Jain are not the ground on which the

matter can be sent for further investigation. The trial court has observed that the petitioner is free to move a protest petition against the final report

filed by the police.

Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as a matter of fact, the investigation has been conducted by as many as four Officers and they all

have concluded that prima facie case for commission of cognizable offence against accused Pukhraj Jain is made out, however, the S.H.O., Police

Station, Jhab in connivance with Pukhraj Jain has submitted the negative final report in the matter without taking into consideration the evidence

available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the impugned order passed by the trial court be set aside and the police authorities may

be directed to conduct further investigation into the matter.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the material available on record, I do not find any case for interference as the

trial court after going through the material available on record has observed that the petitioner has failed to convince it as to on what points, the further

investigation is necessary. The trial court has rightly observed that if the petitioner is aggrieved by conclusion arrived at by the police in the final report,

he is free to move a protest petition.

Hence, no case for interference is made out in this criminal misc. petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.