Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1142 (RAJ)

Rishi @ Lokesh Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2013-07-01

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer that the investigation in F.I.R., namely F.I.R. No. 596/2011, registered at Police Station, Nadbai, District Bharatpur, for offences under Sections 304-B and 201 I.P.C., should be transferred to the C.B.I., as the petitioners do not have faith in the investigation being carried out by the Investigating Officer. 2. Mr. Asgar Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that although the alleged incident had occurred on 07.12.2011, although deceased Radha was cremated in the presence of the complainant-party, still the F.I.R. was not lodged till 10.12.2011. Thus, there is an inordinate delay of three days. The said delay has not been explained by the complainant. Secondly, the Police is hand-in-glove with the complainant-party; the Police is trying to falsely implicate the petitioners. It is harassing the petitioners during the course of investigation. Thirdly, the petitioners have sent a representation to the M.P. of the concerned area, as well as, submitted a representation to the Principal Secretary [Administration], Home Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. But despite the submissions of the representations, the investigation is still being carried out under the influence of the complainant and his party. Hence, according to the learned counsel in order to ensure a fair and an impartial investigation, the investigation should be transferred to the C.B.I. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents submitted along with the petition. 4. A bare perusal of the documents submitted along with the petition clearly reveals that the petitioners have yet to file a single complaint before the concerned Superintendent of Police or before the D.G.P. Rajasthan, Jaipur highlighting the fact that the Investigating Officer is investigating the case only under the direction or influence of the complainant. Merely because, the representation may have been submitted to the concerned Member of Parliament or to the Principal Secretary [Administration] does not make out a case that the investigation is a partial one. 5. But nonetheless, this Court does expect the Investigating Officer to carry out an impartial and an objective investigation. For, the Investigating Officer is duty bound to investigate the case from the side of the complainant as well as from the side of the accused. Moreover, they are duty bound to collect all the evidence, for and against the accused and to present the same before the trial Court. For, the Investigating Officer is duty bound to investigate the case from the side of the complainant as well as from the side of the accused. Moreover, they are duty bound to collect all the evidence, for and against the accused and to present the same before the trial Court. This Court does not expect the Investigating Officer to investigate the case at the behest of or under the direction of the complainant. 6. Although this Court is not inclined to transfer the investigation to the C.B.I., but as stated above, this Court has high hopes from the Investigating Officer that he will investigate the case strictly in accordance with the law. 7. With these directions, this petition is, hereby, disposed of. 8. Consequent upon disposal of the main petition, the stay application, filed therewith, does not survive; the same is also disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******