Ramnarayan Choudhary @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

 This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue direction to the Investigating Officer to

conduct investigation into the allegations levelled in the FIR No.201/2015 of Police Station Pipar City, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable

under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 477-A and 166 IPC expeditiously.

It appears that earlier also, the petitioner has filed several criminal misc. petitions before this Court in the year 2016 as well as in the year 2017 with a

prayer for issuing directions to the police authorities to conduct fair, impartial and expeditious investigation into the allegations levelled by him in various

FIRs .Criminal misc. petitions filed by the petitioner in the year 2016 were decided by co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 27.09.2016 by

passing the following directions:-

‘The upshot of the above discussion is that, while declining reliefs craved for by the accusedpetitioners for quashing impugned FIRs. All these

petitions are disposed of with following directions:

The prayer for annulment of impugnedFIRs on behalf accused-petitioners is declined;

The investigating agency is ordained toexamine all the impugned FIRs objectively and if it is found that any of the impugned FIRs is founded on

identical narration of events and facts as well as works undertaken by the accused persons, which are subject matter of FIR N.354 of 2014, then

same may be forwarded to ACB, CPS, Jaipur for being clubbed with the said FIR for investigation without any delay:

3 The investigating agency is directed tomake fair, impartial and dispassionate investigation with promptitude in relation to the remaining impugned

FIRs.

4 The investigating agency is also expectedto ensure compliance of 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. during examination and interrogation of accusedpetitioners, if

occasion arises.

5 Considering the pious aims and objects ofthe Act, the investigating agency is expected to make thorough investigation into the FIRs for facilitating

submission of Final Report in the matter, or chargesheet, as the case may be.

6 The investigating agency, while proceedingwith the investigation into the impugned FIRs, is required to submit conclusions solely on the basis of

evidence and material collected during investigation, uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court.

7 The accused-petitioners and thecomplainant are expected in all fairness to cooperate with the investigating agency.’

Later on, in the year 2017 also, the petitioner has preferred several criminal misc. petitions seeking direction for the Investigating Agency to conduct

fair, impartial and expeditious investigation into the allegations levelled in the different FIR’s filed by him. Four petitions were disposed by the co-

ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.03.2017 by passing the following order:-

“By these criminal misc. petitions, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioner-complainant has sought direction to the respondents for conducting fair and

impartial investigation in various FIRs lodged at Police Station, Pipar City. Earlier also the petitioner had filed criminal misc. petitions bearing Nos.

950/2016, 951/2016, 1234/2016, 1624/2016, 1724/2016, 1725/2016, 1726/2016, 1727/2016 and other petitions. The controversy hovering around in these

matters has been set at rest by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 1280/2016 (Ram Niwas Panga Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) & 20

other petitions, decided on 27th September 2016. The operative part of the order passed in those petitions reads as under:

“The upshot of the above discussion is that, while declining reliefs craved for by the accusedpetitioners for quashing impugned FIRs, all these

petitions are disposed of with following directions:

The prayer for annulment of impugned FIRs on behalf accused-petitioners is declined;

The investigating agency is ordained toexamine all the impugned FIRs objectively and if it is found that any of the impugned FIRs is founded on

identical narration of events and facts as well as works undertaken by the accused persons, which are subject matter of FIR No.354 of 2014, then

same may be forwarded to ACB, CPS, Jaipur for being clubbed with the said FIR for investigation without any delay;

The investigating agency is directed tomake fair, impartial and dispassionate investigation with promptitude in relation to the remaining impugned

FIRs;

The investigating agency is also expected toensure compliance of 41 and 41A Cr.P.C. during investigation and interrogation of accused petitioners,

if occasion arises.

Considering the pious aims and objects ofthe Act, the investigating agency is expected to make thorough investigation into the FIRs for facilitating

submission of Final Report in the matter, or chargesheet, as the case may be.

The investigating agency, while proceedingwith the investigation into the impugned FIRs, is required to submit conclusions solely on the basis of

evidence and material collected during investigation, uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court.

The accused-petitioners and thecomplainant are expected in all fairness to cooperate with the investigating agency.â€​

The prayer of the petitioner sought for in these petitions was taken care of by the Court while disposing of the aforesaid 21 petitions and the

investigating agency was directed to examine the impugned FIRs objectively and even in certain contingencies the matters were directed to be

forwarded to ACB, CPS, Jaipur for investigation without delay and to make fair, impartial and dispassionate investigation with promptitude, as such,

the present petitions preferred on same cause of action seeking same reliefs are not at all maintainable and no further order/direction is required to be

passed in these matters. It is needless to observe that the investigating officer is expected to adhere to the directions issued earlier by this Court in

aforementioned 21 criminal misc. petitions for concluding investigation at the earliest. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. petitions are closed.â€​

Now the petitioner has again preferred this criminal misc. petition seeking same reliefs as prayed for in the earlier petitions.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as Investigating Officer have submitted that the investigation into the several criminal cases filed by the petitioner is

going on and certain documents have been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination of signatures of some persons. It is submitted that

the investigation will be conducted as soon as the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory will be received.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioner has filed as many as 40 FIRs and out of which 25 FIRs, negative final report has

been filed by the police.

Be that as it may, this criminal misc. petition is disposed of with a direction to the Investigating Agency to conduct investigation into the allegations

levelled in the FIR No.201/2015 of Police Station Pipar City, District Jodhpur and other FIRs, in which the investigation is still pending, expeditiously

with strict compliance of directions given in the orders dated on 29.09.2016 and 06.09.2017, issued earlier by this Court.

It is observed that every time the petitioner has any grievances with investigating agency or investigating authority in relation to the FIR’s filed by

him he approaches this Court by filing several criminal misc. petitions. This Court is of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioner for approaching

this Court “several times†by filing petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for seeking same reliefs is not appreciable in view of the law laid down by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2008 SC 907 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

as under:-

‘26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of

Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the

officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the

High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under

Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?

As we have already observed above, theMagistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and

for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High

Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his

FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the

remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the

Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

It is true that alternative remedy is not anabsolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High

Court should not ordinarily interfere.’

The same position of law is reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others,

reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277.

In such circumstances, it is observed that if the petitioner remains unsatisfied with the investigation conducted by the Investigating Authority ,he is free

to approach the concerned Magistrate in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu and Sudhir Bhaskarrao cases

(supra).

Stay petition also stands disposed of.