JUDGMENT 1. - The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the F.I.R. which has not been registered as yet & was submitted on 2lst June,1990and 30th July, 1990 may be directed to be registered. The allegation of the petitioner is that the authorities of the State of Rajasthan are in collusion/conspiracy and to their own interest fabricated record in filing the challan against the petitioner and have put a pressure on the Superintendent of Police, Jaipur not to register the F.I.R. of the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner the action of not registering the F.I.R. malatde. 2. It is further prayed that in the present matter the investigation should be directed to be done by an independent agency since the police is not acting fairly an4 is biased against the petitioner and it is only the C.B.I. which can properly investigate the matter and bring the truth on the record. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that the State Government has failed to discharge its constitutional obligation and on the that account, the Union of India should take proper step for promulgation of the President rule in the State. 4. The facts of the case giving rise to the petition is that the petitioner was in service as an I.P.S. Officer and on account of an incident of 23rd March, 1985 a challan was produced in the Court of C.J.M., Ist Class, Bikaner, which was subsequently transferred to Ratangarh. The matter is still pending in the Court. In the meantime the Slate Government directed departmental enquiry for taking the disciplinary action and the petitioner was suspended during that period. The report of Shri R. Krishna, I.A.S. Annexure-15 has been placed on record from which it is evident that the petitioner was exonerated of the charge and ultimately no departmental enquiry was taken. It is on the basis of this report that the petitioner has submitted the F.I.R. alleging fabrication of record and filing false complaint. 5. The report of Shri R. Krishna, I.A.S. Annexure-15 has been placed on record from which it is evident that the petitioner was exonerated of the charge and ultimately no departmental enquiry was taken. It is on the basis of this report that the petitioner has submitted the F.I.R. alleging fabrication of record and filing false complaint. 5. The submission of Learned Advocate General, in the present matter is that the challan is still pending and after the Court comes to a conclusion that no offence has been committed by the petitioner and he was falsely implicated or there was a conspiracy against the petitioner or the fabricated documents were prepared by any of the person which may be round during the investigation in relation to the proceedings pending in the Court then the Court is bound under Section 195(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lodge a complaint and come to the conclusion that an offence has been committed. The petitioner can approach the Court at that point of time if no such action is taken by that Court. The petitioner has the remedy to file a writ petition or to come in revision against that order of the Court. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Nadtulal and Anr. v. Radmal (D.B.C.W. No. 1228/85) decided on 16th November, 1987 . It is further submitted that the F.I.R. was not registered after making preliminary enquiry on the basis of satisfaction of the authority who was duly recorded this fact in the proceedings. Reliance was place on the judgment of the Lordships in P.C.R. v. State (A.I.R. 1971 (S.C.) 520) . 6. Submissions of both parties have been considered by me the basic questions to be decided in the writ petition are as under : (1) Whether the report of the Commission of Enquiry of Shri R. Krishna is binding on the Court where the challan is pending or (2) Whether the respondent can be directed to register the F.I.R. during the pendency of the challan. 7. No finding can be given on the merits of the case at this stage since the matter is under trial and is pending before the C.J.M. (1st Class), Ratangarh. 7. No finding can be given on the merits of the case at this stage since the matter is under trial and is pending before the C.J.M. (1st Class), Ratangarh. There Court be a circumstance where the documents have actually been fabricated and the petitioner as put to harassment of challan and on the other hand there Could he a case where actually there is no fabrication of record or such other things are alleged and in order to get rid of the enquiry a person want to file F.I.R. As it has been laid down by the Division Bench of this Court that the F.I.R. for use of fabricated/false document or conspiracy for filing challan can he registered after the investigation and trial is over in the case pending before the Court, I am also of the view that it would not be proper to register a case at this stage when the allegation is that the material used in framing the charge against the petitioner as fabricated one. It will be proper for the Court when the trial is over then it conies to the conclusion whether the said material is fabricated or whether any conspiracy is there against the petitioner and if the petitioner is acquitted and finding is given by the Court with regard to the material used at that time, it is the duty of the Court to get the case registered under Section (2) in respect of the persons and material used against the accused which was found to be fabricated. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that if the F.I.R. is not registered then it not be proceeded on account of delay. I am of the view that delay will not come in the way of the Court which is duty hound to register a case when the Trial is over in terms of Section . The petitioner may approach this Court proper direction only at that stage. 8. Regarding the enquiry conducted by Shri R. Krishna, I any of the view that the procedure of Trial as required under the Criminal Procedure Code is different than as in an enquiry which is held in the administrative capacity. 9. The enquiry report is not hinding on the Court not it can be said that the no offence has been committed by the accused at this stage. 9. The enquiry report is not hinding on the Court not it can be said that the no offence has been committed by the accused at this stage. I would not like to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. The reliance placed on 1988 (1) R.L.R..563 is a case where no challan was pending in the Court. 10. The question of case any direction to C.B.J. in view of 1989(l) R.L.R. P.178 at this stage does not arise. The reliance on 1959 A.I.R. (S.C.) P 149 placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there could be no waiver with regard to breach to breach of fundamental right is un controverted and this question will arise only when a decision is given by the Trial Court and that stage the petitioner would be free to invoke the remedy which is available to him. 11. The writ petition is rejected with no costs.Petition rejected. *******