ORDER : Farjand Ali, J. “I am for truth, no matter who tell it. I am for justice, no matter who it’s for or against.” – Malcom X 1. By way of filing these two miscellaneous petitions, the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction so as to quash FIR No. 33/2024 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC and FIR No.34/2024 lodged at Banswara Police Station, District Banswara for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 474 and 471 of the IPC. 2. Since the present case has a chequered history, the same calls for production of facts in detail and thus, the same are elaborated in the succeeding paragraphs: (i)The petitioner is a professional sub-broker having a license bearing No. AP2486002701. He facilitates interested persons in building their investment portfolios by way of online or offline trading platforms such as mobile apps or web-based platforms, providing back-office support such as account opening, KYC verification, fund transfer, settlement etc. and assist them in investing as per the latest market trends. The petitioner, thus, acts as an intermediatory between the registered stock-broker companies or brokerage firms and its investors or clients. The petitioner earns his commission from the brokerage generated by the money invested by the clients of the broker company. The petitioner is also a registered investor himself and is the sub-broker of M/s Choice Equity Broking Company Limited and has thus invested huge amount in different channels. Eventually, his account was blocked illegally and his broking account was seized. It was revealed that all his invested money alongwith the brokerage commission money has been siphoned off. Several representations were made by the petitioner to the concerned persons but to no avail. (ii) In this light, the petitioner went to lodge an FIR in the concerned police station. However, the matter was refused to be lodged by the concerned police officials. The FIR bearing No. 1/2024 dated 25.01.2024 at Cyber Police Station, District Banwara, for offence under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 406 of the IPC and Sections 66(C) & 66(D) of the IT Act could only be registered after an order of the concerned court under section 156(3) of the CrPC. As per the guidelines contained in the case titled “Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. As per the guidelines contained in the case titled “Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. on 12 November, 2013 AIR 2014 SC 187 ”, the Apex Court held that the word ‘shall’ be used in Section 154(1) of the CrPC, is mandatory which shows the intention of the legislation and states that the police are bound to register an FIR if the information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence is received. Nevertheless, the investigation in the FIR No. 1/2024 had commenced and during the course of the investigation, the accounts of the said companies were directed to be frozen.. Before this event, a part of the amount to the tune of Rs. 97 lacs, invested by the petitioner in the said companies, was directed to be returned in the bank account of the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by the competent court. Eventually, the investigation while at its peak, was suddenly put to an end, causing stalling of the entire proceedings. The petitioner was threatened to withdraw the case and the Investigating Officer the then Additional Superintendent of Police Kan Singh Bhati and the Superintendent of Police Abhijeet Singh refused to take any action in the said FIR. (iii) In light of the above-mentioned aspects, this Court considers it necessary to dive deep and hence, the question arises as to: (a) Whether the Investigation Officer Addl. S.P. Kan Singh Bhati and Superintendent of Police Abhijeet Singh were dutiful in stalling the entire investigation proceedings, which was almost at the verge of its conclusion, emanating out of the FIR No.1/2024 lodged at Police Station Cyber, District Banswara. (b) On furnishing information that the petitioner was threatened by accused persons, why concerned Investigation Officer and Superintendent of Police refused to proceed with the matter. 3. This Court observes that there are certain companies, which in the garb of extraordinary returns, allure the public investors and eventually dupe the money in the name of market risks. Thus, the question arises: (i) Whether the said companies have valid registration under the SEBI Act or licensed under RBI Act. If the said broking companies are being operated without following the due procedure of law, apart from the disclaimers of market risks; then, (ii) Whether the activities being carried out by those companies, would amount to financial scam of a large scale. 4. If the said broking companies are being operated without following the due procedure of law, apart from the disclaimers of market risks; then, (ii) Whether the activities being carried out by those companies, would amount to financial scam of a large scale. 4. It is pertinent to mention herein that since the petitioner was the middle-man between the stockbroker companies and its investors, the petitioner was looked upon as the one involved into the siphoning of the money invested by certain persons. In this backdrop, on 13.02.2023, a complaint was submitted by one Dr. Prayas Mehta before the concerned Superintendent of Police, Banswara against the present petitioner and his wife Ritu Nanawati for allegedly swindling an amount of Rs. 3.5 crores. The petitioner was summoned to the Police Station Banswara for interrogation wherein he was sought to return the money as demanded by the said complainant. During this interrogation, the petitioner was assaulted by the police officials when he refused to part with the money. It is pertinent to mention herein that till this time, there was no case registered against the petitioner. However, the petitioner was then arrested by misusing power under Section 151 of CrPC for further interrogation. It was in the midnight of 14/15.02.2024, during the wee hours, i.e. at 2:47, an FIR bearing No. 33/2024 was lodged against the petitioner for offence under sections 406, 420, 120-B, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC. On the following day, i.e. on 15.02.2024 at 16:44, another FIR bearing no. 34/2024, was lodged at the same police station by one Smt. Nasima against present petitioner, his wife and three other accused persons, for offence under abovementioned sections with an addition of section 474 of IPC for allegedly swindling an amount of Rs. 8 crores. Consequently, the bank accounts of the petitioner and his family members were seized by the investigative agency. The petitioner was however released by the police officials on 15.02.2024 in the evening. 5. The present case concerns about the investigation being conducted herein. As per section 2 (h) of the CrPC, 'investigation' includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. However, this is not an exhaustive definition. The present case concerns about the investigation being conducted herein. As per section 2 (h) of the CrPC, 'investigation' includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf. However, this is not an exhaustive definition. The procedure to be followed by the police while doing an investigation has been prescribed under section 157 of CrPC. As such, there are four elements of investigation, viz: case diaries, spot visits, collection of evidence, and searches & seizures. 6. There are four strong pillars of the criminal justice system: (i) Police (ii) Prosecution; (iii) Defence; and (iii) Judiciary. Among these four pillars, it is the police that first come in contact with the parties. As per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, “CrPC”) the police are empowered to investigate both cognizable [section 2(c)] and non-cognizable offences [section 2(l)]. In this sense, the police play a crucial role in the criminal justice system of the country. While the police officials are assigned with multi-fold duties, their role can be divided into four broad categories: (i) prevention of crime; (ii) investigation of crime; (iii) maintenance of law and order; and (iv) protection of human rights. 7. It is significant to note that by way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed to quash the above-mentioned FIR(s) lodged against himself. Looking at the trail of events in registering the above two cases in a hurried and a haphazard manner, this Court shows its concern about the obliviousness of the concerned police officials about the law of the land and hence, the question arises: (i) whether the police officials were authorised to interrogate the petitioner without having any case registered against him; (ii) whether the arrest of the petitioner on 13.02.2023 in pursuance of section 151 of CrPC, would constitute illegal detention of the petitioner; (iii) considering the aspect that the present matter involves the alleged commission of economic offences, what was the urgency to lodge an FIR during the wee hours, i.e. at 2:47, followed by another FIR at 16:44 within a span of 24 hours. 8. It is also pertinent to mention herein that during the course of the investigation of the FIR Nos. 8. It is also pertinent to mention herein that during the course of the investigation of the FIR Nos. 33 and 34, the petitioner made a written representation to the concerned Inspector General of Police regarding the possible connivance of the police officials in these matters. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2021, one Fatima Babuji, w/o Jauhar Babuji had borrowed an amount of Rs. 45 lacs from the petitioner, which the petitioner had transferred online. In order to avoid returning the said payment, the petitioner was kidnapped and severely beaten on the instructions of Fatima Babuji and certain other persons. About this incident, the father of the petitioner, namely, Himanshu Nanawati, had lodged an FIR no. 445/2021 at Police Station Kotwali, District Banwara. Resultantly, Fatima Babuji, went to jail and after being released on bail, she, in connivance with Additional Superintendent of Police, lodged a false case by way of an FIR bearing No. 476/2021 against the present petitioner for offence under the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Kotwali, Banswara. In this matter, the then Addl. S.P. Shri Kan Singh Bhati had made an illegal demand of Rs. 25 lacs from the petitioner. The said demand was made by Head Constable, Pariskhit Trivedi, a call recording, in a pen drive submitted alongwith the said representation. Further, regarding the same illegal demand of money and misbehaviour; the petitioner had also approached the Director General of Police, however to no avail. 9. A copy of the complaint was also sent to the Office of Chief Minister, Govt. Of Rajasthan through Inspector General (Vigilance) and representation was also sent to the Director (Enforcement) for the help. An affidavit has been furnished by the petitioner before this Court showing the circumstance under which he went through as well as serious aspersions levelled against high level police official(s). This Court would feel it apt to reproduce the contents of the affidavit of the petitioner supplied to this Court, which reads as under:- “AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MISC. PETITION AS WELL AS DOCUMENTS TO BRING ON RECORD THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE I, Himanshu S\o Shri Dharmendra Nanawati, aged about 35 years, resident of Street No.1, Mohan Colony, Kotwali, Banswara (Rajasthan) do hereby state on oath as under: - 1. PETITION AS WELL AS DOCUMENTS TO BRING ON RECORD THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE I, Himanshu S\o Shri Dharmendra Nanawati, aged about 35 years, resident of Street No.1, Mohan Colony, Kotwali, Banswara (Rajasthan) do hereby state on oath as under: - 1. That the deponent is the petitioner in the above noted case and is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and is competent to swear the present affidavit.’ 2. That the petitioner has filed the aforesaid criminal misc. petition and the same is pending consideration before this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner humbly prays that he has been victimized and the investigations are absolutely mala fide attended with vengeance and in respect thereof the petitioner wishes to bring on record certain documents for which this affidavit is being filed. 3. That the petitioner had filed an FIR No.1\2024 at Cyber Police Station, Banswara in which it was alleged that there are certain companies who are inducing and enticing people for investments with promise to high returns, however, the petitioner who is an investor and a registered share broker with licence No.AP2486002701 had invested huge amount of money in the said companies through banking transactions was not given satisfactory reply/response or payments with demanded, which clearly disclosed that the said companies are either shady or are duping investors of their money. The petitioner along with the FIR No.1 had given details of various transactions so as to show that the allegations leveled by him are corroborated and substantiated. It is worthwhile to mention her that the said FIR could only be registered after an order of the Court under Section 156(3) CrPC. Initially, the said FIR was investigated and during investigation, part of the amount invested through the petitioner was returned in the bank account of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.97 lacs which was released in favour of the petitioner under the orders of competent court. However, suddenly the investigation which was being carried out stopped in its tracks and the petitioner was being threatened to withdraw the case else face consequences. The investigating officer, Kan Singh Bhati and Superintendent of Police Abhijeet Singh refused to take any further action in that FIR. 4. That the petitioner was implicated in the FIR Nos.33 and 34 of Police Station Banswara, District Banswara without there being any substantiation of the allegations. The investigating officer, Kan Singh Bhati and Superintendent of Police Abhijeet Singh refused to take any further action in that FIR. 4. That the petitioner was implicated in the FIR Nos.33 and 34 of Police Station Banswara, District Banswara without there being any substantiation of the allegations. On 03.02.2023, the petitioner was summoned to the police station and was assaulted as he refused to part with money as demanded by the complainant under the said FIRs and he was arrested under Section 151 CrPC, though till date time there was no complaint by the complainant and the FIR No.34 was registered on the same day at 4:15 PM after arrest of the petitioner in 151 CrPC and FIR No.33 was registered at 2:30 AM at the same police station without any rhyme and reason. 5. That the petitioner has carried out valid banking transactions supported from record wherein investments of investors can clearly be traced by the trail but the investigating agency is hell bent on pressurizing the petitioner solely on the basis of imaginary allegations leveled in the FIR. 6. That the petitioner has time and again represented that he has been given threat to do the acts which he is not in a position to do, nor he is legally bound to do but his complaints have not turned on the deaf ears. 7. That FIR No.476/21 was registered at Police Station Kotwali and in the said FIR after investigation by three investigating officers, negative final report was submitted and Kan Singh Bhati, who was investigating the FIR No.1/24, 33/24 and 34/24 reopened the matter of FIR 476/21 when the petitioner refused to pay the amount of Rs.25 lacs as demanded by him. In this respect, the petitioner has approached to the Director General of Police by way of representation along with his allegations but no action has been taken despite the petitioner having supplied call recordings in support of his allegations. 8. That during the investigation in the FIR No.476, the petitioner came across an order purported to be an order passed by the Hon’ble High Court wherein while granting interim order in favour of the petitioner, it was observed that the petitioner undertakes to pay the complainant of FIR No.34 an amount of Rs.14 lacs and odd. 8. That during the investigation in the FIR No.476, the petitioner came across an order purported to be an order passed by the Hon’ble High Court wherein while granting interim order in favour of the petitioner, it was observed that the petitioner undertakes to pay the complainant of FIR No.34 an amount of Rs.14 lacs and odd. The order in which the said alleged interpolations were made when came to the knowledge of the petitioner, he annexed the same along with other forged documents in his FIR No.1/24, but no action was taken in this regard. However, the same order is now being used against the petitioner to malign his reputation and to show that the petitioner is cheating the complainant of FIR No.34 is using the said order. 9. That the investigation in the FIR Nos.33 and 34 of Police Station Banswara, District Banswara is being carried out absolutely mala fide, which is further fortified from the fact that not only the petitioner but his family members are being harassed to the hilt. Not only the accounts of the petitioner and his wife have been freezed by the investigating officers despite the fact that the amount in the said account was re-credited under the orders of the Court, the accounts of the petitioner’s parents including that of his father, who is a retired Govt. employee and his bank account is also a pension account has also been freezed. 10. That the Investigating Officer and the Superintendent of Police are the so vengeful as when in FIR Nos.476\21 and 436/22 (Kotawali) in which negative final reports have been submitted way-back after investigation by various investigating officers, an application was filed for seeking to file from the Court for the purpose of reopening and reinvestigating the matters. This goes to show that the investigation against the petitioner is being carried out in the pre-determined and targeted fashion which cannot be said to be an impartial investigation. The efforts on behalf of the investigating officer clearly show that the whole attempt and endeavour is to somehow or other arrest\detain the petitioner so that not only the investigation in FIR No.1/24 is frustrated. The efforts on behalf of the investigating officer clearly show that the whole attempt and endeavour is to somehow or other arrest\detain the petitioner so that not only the investigation in FIR No.1/24 is frustrated. The petitioner humbly submits that investigation in any allegation is required and necessary so as to bring out the correct facts i.e. truth, when the investigation becomes a tool to implicate a person, it is carried out in a fashion as if the evidence is to be created\ ignored for the desired result of prosecuting the targeted person so as to achieve the desired result in place of unearthing the truth. 11. That the petitioner humbly submits that stalling of investigation in FIR No.1/24 and a sudden spurt in activities in the FIRs lodged against the petitioner (33\24 for offence under Section 420 and 406 IPC lodged at 2:30 AM speaks itself) makes it apparent the intention is to take the glare away from the allegations leveled in FIR No.1/2024 and to suppress the leads and the accused in the said FIR. The petitioner has made his grievance not only to the DGP but also to the Enforcement Directorate by giving a complaint regarding he alleged nefarious and monetary activities suspected in the transactions of these companies but till date no action has been taken by the authorities concerned. 12. That in these circumstances he petitioner humbly prays that these submissions may kindly be taken on record and considered in support of the pleas in the petition. The petitioner also annexes the copy of the proceedings under Section 151 CrPC as well as the representation givn by the petitioner from time to time to various authorities. VERIFICATION I, the above named deponent do hereby verify that the contents of my above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. No material has been concealed therein. SO HELP ME GOD 10. The precis of the complaint moved by the petitioner to all high officials is being reproduced here and the same reads as :- (a) The complainant Mr. Himanshu Nanawati S/o Mr. Dharmendra is a registered share broker having licence No.AP2486002701 and is engaged in online share trading. (b) In the year 2021, he gave a loan of Rs.45 lacs to one Fatima Babuji W/o Jauhar Babuji, resident of Banswara. Himanshu Nanawati S/o Mr. Dharmendra is a registered share broker having licence No.AP2486002701 and is engaged in online share trading. (b) In the year 2021, he gave a loan of Rs.45 lacs to one Fatima Babuji W/o Jauhar Babuji, resident of Banswara. The said loanee didn't want to repay the amount, therefore, she got the petitioner kidnapped and assaulted severely. A case bearing No.445/2021 was got registered at the Police Station Banswara in this regard and 8 persons including the loanee were arrested. (c) It is alleged that upon release on bail, said Fatima conspired with Mr. Kan Singh Bhati, Addl. S.P. and lodged a false criminal case against the petitioner at the Police Station Kotwali, Banswara bearing No.476/2021. In the said case, three investigating officers gave negative final report, however, Mr. Kan Singh Bhati, Addl. S.P., using political influence, got the case reopened and demanded bribe of Rs.25 lacs through his reader Mr. Parikshit Trivedi, Head Constable, recording of which was made available to the higher officials including the Inspector General of Police, Vigilance, Jaipur. Further on an application submitted to the Director General of Police, the case was again investigated by the Addl. S.P., Rajsamand and final report was submitted in the court concerned. It is alleged that during the investigation of the aforesaid case, Mr. Kan Singh Bhati physically and mentally tortured the complainant and his family members and also got his bank account seized unauthorizedly for 18 months. He also got added Section 376 IPC in the above case without any basis. (d) In July 2023, a fraud was committed with the complainant in online share trading, upon which he went to the Police Station, Kotwali, Banswara for lodging an FIR, but he asked to bring orders form the Superintendent of Police. It is alleged that under the influence of Mr. Kan Singh, S.P. Mr. Abhijeet Singh did not order for registration of the FIR and asked the complainant to go to Mr. Ashok Rathore, ADG as the matter was to be handled by SOG. The officials of the SOG, in turn, reverted to the petitioner back to S.P., Banswara, who then got the case registered as a complaint and directed Mr. Suryaveer Singh, CO, Banswara to investigate the matter. Later on the complainant submitted a complaint in the concerned court, whereupon FIR No.1/2024 was registered at the Cyber Police Station, Banswara, but Mr. The officials of the SOG, in turn, reverted to the petitioner back to S.P., Banswara, who then got the case registered as a complaint and directed Mr. Suryaveer Singh, CO, Banswara to investigate the matter. Later on the complainant submitted a complaint in the concerned court, whereupon FIR No.1/2024 was registered at the Cyber Police Station, Banswara, but Mr. Abhijeet Singh, S.P. and Mr. Kan Singh Bhati, Addl. S.P. pressurized and influenced the investigation. (e) A few days after registration of the aforesaid FIR No.1/2024, the complainant received a Whatsapp call from one Mr. Danish, Crime Reporter of a prominent newspaper of Banswara, who demanded a sum of Rs.20 lacs on behalf of the S.P. for letting the investigation conducted smoothly. Later on on 02.02.2024, Mr. Danish called the complainant at 02.00 a.m. in the night and asked him to meet urgently. He came to his home and again demanded a sum of Rs.15 lacs on behalf of the S.P. for expeditious investigation. The complainant recorded the aforesaid conversation on mobile. He informed the fact to the DIG, ACB on telephone regarding the aforesaid demand, upon which he was asked to submit a complaint at Jaipur Headquarter on 7th or 8th February. The complainant also informed Mr. Suryaveer Singh, DySP, Banswara, who in turn told that all the facts have been apprised to the IGP and they will proceed against Danish on return of Mr. Abhijeet Singh, S.P. from leave on 07.02.2024. (f) On 07.02.2024 at about 12 o'clock, Danish called the complainant through Whatsapp and told him that IGP has called him and Mr. Kan Singh Bhati regarding the conversation recorded by complainant, a copy of which was also given to Mr. Suryaveer Singh. Danish threatened him with dire consequences. The complainant told Mr. Suryaveer Singh, Deputy S.P. regarding the call and went to him, then again Danish called through Whatsapp, which was recorded by Mr. Suryaveer Singh. (g) On 07.02.2024 in the night at about 11 o'clock Dansih came to the house of the complainant and threatened him and asked him to give in writing that no demand of bribe was made on behalf of the S.P. (h) On 09.02.2024, the complainant submitted all the facts to the IGP, Banswara through e-mail. (i) On 14.02.2024 at 2.00 p.m., the complainant went to court premises for some work, from where, Mr. Mahipal Singh, Constable and Mr. (i) On 14.02.2024 at 2.00 p.m., the complainant went to court premises for some work, from where, Mr. Mahipal Singh, Constable and Mr. Vivekbhan Singh, ASI, brought him to Police Station Kotwali, where Mr. Vikram Singh, SHO and Mr. Mahipal Singh, Constable, beat him cruelly. Then they called Nisreen @ Nasema and Fatima Babuji and again beat him up and then detained him under Section 151 of the CrPC and locked him up. They told him that it is the consequence of making the audio of Danish viral. (j) On 15.02.2024 at 02.00 pm. Mr. Kan Singh, Addl. S.P. and Mr. Abhijeet Singh, S.P. came to the Kotwali Police Station and they beat the complainant with belts in a closed room. They asked him to state that he had given money to various police officers at Udaipur and Banswara. They also forced him to state that he recorded the call of Danish upon the instructions of Mr. Suryaveer Singh, CO and Mr. Jai Singh, Inspector, CID. The said statement of the complainant was recorded in mobile. Then they asked him about the password of his mobile and deleted the recording in front of him. They also asked him how to format the phone. (k) On 15.02.2024, Mr. Kan Singh, Addl. S.P. got the account of the complainant and his wife at ICICI Bank seized. He demanded a sum of Rs.1 crore for settling the things. On the same day in the evening, the Superintendent of Police sent police personnel to conduct a search of his house. They took the laptop and ledgers with them and also misbehaved with his family members. The mobile and laptop contains the details of all the business related activities, passwords, bank account details and the details of other investors, which are very important for the complainant to conduct his business. (l) On 14.02.2024 in the night, upon the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Mr. Vikram Singh, SHO, called for the persons, with whom the complainant had 4 years old transactional dispute, and got registered two false cases bearing No.33/2024 and 34/2024 at the Police Station Kotwali, Banswara and arrested the petitioner on 15.02.2024 at 08.30 pm. without any investigation. (m) Upon interference of the higher officials, the complainant's advocate was called and he was released at 11.00 p.m. 11. without any investigation. (m) Upon interference of the higher officials, the complainant's advocate was called and he was released at 11.00 p.m. 11. Eventually, conniving together the police and the opponent of the petitioner, serious pressure was mounted upon him. In the year 2022, he moved a criminal miscellaneous petition bearing SBCRLMP No.1479/2022 before the Hon’ble High Court for the quashing of FIR No. 476/2021 in which he used to be tortured by police. On 18.04.2022, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, after perusal of the case diary and the factual report, was pleased to pass an order wherein it was directed that: “the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with FIR no. 476/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Banwara. However, the petitioner shall be required to join the investigation.” 12. The investigation was going on and the investigating agency then submitted a negative Final Report. Accordingly, on 18.07.2023, the co-ordinate bench of this Court, after taking into account the fact of submission of the said Final report by the investigating agency post investigation, was pleased to dispose of the abovementioned petition, in the following verbatim: “Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report wherein it has been mentioned that after thorough investigation, police is going to submit Final Report in this case. The said report is hereby taken on record. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present misc. petition has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. Stay petition also stands dismissed.” It is a well settled law that if investigation under section 173(2) has been completed, and nothing incriminating or any material which could connect the accused to the alleged crime has been found, then there is no point to unnecessarily prosecute a person. Thus, at this point, matter was closed and the petitioner came out clean. 13. However, while the investigation was going on in the above two matters arising out of FIR nos. 33 and 34, Investigation Officer, namely, Kan Singh Bhati, who stopped the investigation in FIR no. 1/2024, lodged by the petitioner, reopened the case arising out of FIR No. 476/2021 lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Kotwali, District Banswara (explained in para no. 7), in which a Final Report had already been submitted by the investigative agency and no incriminating material was found against the petitioner and accordingly, the case was closed. 1/2024, lodged by the petitioner, reopened the case arising out of FIR No. 476/2021 lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Kotwali, District Banswara (explained in para no. 7), in which a Final Report had already been submitted by the investigative agency and no incriminating material was found against the petitioner and accordingly, the case was closed. As per the version of the Investigation Officer, that since he has reopened the matter, he has come across a forged document purporting to have been submitted by the petitioner himself, to the effect of the two orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court, whilst the petitioner has nothing to do with this. It is felt apt by this court to reproduce the said order dated 18.07.2023, in verbatim: “Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report wherein it has been mentioned that department has submitted the relevant document, kindly proceed with a personal bond of Rs. 7,50,000.00 and release the dues. The report has been taken on record. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present misc. petition has become infructuous and dismissed accordingly. Stay petition also stands dismissed.” Order dated 11.09.2023, in the following verbatim: “Learned public prosecutor has submitted a report wherein it has been mentioned that previously the transaction for the order has been declined due to tax liability transaction failure. New order cannot be issued as current order violation will occur. For, the same account number 079301503121 should be credited with due amount of both Hakimuddin Tabran and Nishreen Hakimuddin Tabran and within a maximum time of 4 working days i.e. on or before 15 September 2023 the complete amount should be transferred via electronic mode in Nishreen Hakimuddin Tabran bank account as Hakimuddin Tabran is an NRI and any transaction in NRI cannot be possible. All the court fee and relevant charges are received. Total amount to be credited is Rs. 14,43,85,250.00. The complete amount should be transferred to Nishreen Hakimuddin Tabran, any bank account from the account number 079301503121 of ICICI Bank. As soon as IT charges received from the amount should be reflected on immediate basis in the primary holder bank account. All the transaction charges for the mentioned amount will be borned by the beneficiary.” 14. 14,43,85,250.00. The complete amount should be transferred to Nishreen Hakimuddin Tabran, any bank account from the account number 079301503121 of ICICI Bank. As soon as IT charges received from the amount should be reflected on immediate basis in the primary holder bank account. All the transaction charges for the mentioned amount will be borned by the beneficiary.” 14. As stated in the above paras, there are serious aspersions arising out of the said FIR, as to the aspects that in the investigation of the above FIR nos. 476/2021, the question arises as to why in these matters, the petitioner would forge a document purporting to be a High Court order and present it to the investigation agency wherein he has been directed by the Court to give the money to the complainant in the FIR No. 33, i.e. Smt. Naseema alias Nashreen Hakimuddin, when there was a protection order in his favour and subsequently negative final report got filed. 15. This is a matter of grave concern and poses a serious threat to the entire criminal justice system as an attempt has been made to play with the law. The above facts demonstrate an alarming situation and as such, this Court is compelled to remark on the aspersions of the concerned police officials to the effect that: (i) whether the Investigation Officer, Kan Singh Bhati, who prevented the investigation in FIR No. 1/2024 lodged by the petitioner, was justified to reopen the case arising out of FIR No. 476/2021 lodged against petitioner. (ii) there is a serious contradiction between the version of the Investigation Officer and the facts of the case. Looking at the chronology, in the CRLMP/1479/2022 moved by petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 476/2021, on 18.04.2022, an order was passed restraining the arrest of petitioner and subsequently, on 18.07.2023, the said petition was disposed of on account of the submission of the negative final report. However, as per the Investigation Officer, he found two High Court orders dated 18.07.2023 and on 11.09.2023 in the file of the matter arising out of FIR No. 476/2021, as mentioned above; and both the orders are against the stand of the petitioner. However, as per the Investigation Officer, he found two High Court orders dated 18.07.2023 and on 11.09.2023 in the file of the matter arising out of FIR No. 476/2021, as mentioned above; and both the orders are against the stand of the petitioner. It is difficult to understand that why a man of common prudence would present/submit such forged documents in his defence, in the matter wherein he has been exonerated; a document of different cause of action, wherein a monetary liability has been imposed against him and that too in favour of the complainant of FIR no. 476/2021, especially when there was an order restraining his arrest on 18.04.2022 and an order disposing the petition on 18.07.2023. (iii) further, as per the investigative agency, the petitioner supplied the copy of the above forged documents to the complainant of the FIR no. 33 on watsapp. The same is highly doubtful and questionable in light of the above point arisen. The serious question arises as to why the copy of the order shall be supplied to the victim of FIR No.33/2024 instead of victim of FIR No.476/2021. 16. Coming back to the FIR Nos. 33/2024 & 34/2024 lodged at Police Station, Banswara, the petitioner moved criminal miscellaneous petition Nos. 1709/2024 and 1677/2024 respectively for quashing of the FIRs. This Court had passed an order restraining arrest of the petitioner in both the FIR(s). At the same time, to the utter dismay of this Court, Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Additional Superintendent of Police and Mr. Vikram Singh, Circle Inspector, Police Station Banswara, were also present in the court while the matter was taken up on 18.04.2024. It is worthwhile to mention that neither there was any direction to call for their presence nor any verbal expression of any nature, was made seeking their presence in the Court. This Court finds this gravely suspicious. These two persons had come from a place which is 550 kms far from the Court, the same amounts to over act of these officers and show their undue interest in the matter. 17. Seeking fair investigation is a fundamental right and it should always be fair, reasonable and just without any bias and giving a chance to any party to the lis to raise a finger over its transparency. 17. Seeking fair investigation is a fundamental right and it should always be fair, reasonable and just without any bias and giving a chance to any party to the lis to raise a finger over its transparency. If investigation in a criminal case is not done fairly, properly or attended with malice, then the same may collapse the case of the prosecution at one hand or may cause prejudice to the interest of the defence on the other hand. It reminds this Court of the words by Henning Menkell, “A criminal investigation is like a construction site. Everything has to be done in the proper order or the building won’t hold up.” 18. Therefore, for the purpose of fair and de-novo investigation, this Court feels important to discuss that under what circumstances should a matter be transferred to independent agencies, like Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, “CBI”). In this regard, this Court straight away refer to the decision in Dharam Pal vs. State of Haryana on 29 January, 2016, (2016) 4 SCC 160 , wherein the issue was discussed as to whether the constitutional courts can direct for further investigation by some other independent agency. The Apex Court while directing the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, “CBI”), has held: “The power to order fresh, de-novo or re-investigation being vested with the Constitutional Courts, the commencement of a trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising the said constitutional power which is meant to ensure a fair and just investigation. It can never be forgotten that as the great ocean has only one test, the test of salt, so does justice has one flavour, the flavour of answering to the distress of the people without any discrimination. We may hasten to add that the democratic setup has the potentiality of ruination if a citizen feels, the truth uttered by a poor man is seldom listened to. Not for nothing it has been said that Sun rises and Sun sets, light and darkness, winter and spring come and go, even the course of time is playful but truth remains and sparkles when justice is done. Not for nothing it has been said that Sun rises and Sun sets, light and darkness, winter and spring come and go, even the course of time is playful but truth remains and sparkles when justice is done. It is the bounden duty of a Court of law to uphold the truth and truth means absence of deceit, absence of fraud and in a criminal investigation a real and fair investigation, not an investigation that reveals itself as a sham one. It is not acceptable. It has to be kept uppermost in mind that impartial and truthful investigation is imperative. If there is indentation or concavity in the investigation, can the ‘faith’ in investigation be regarded as the gospel truth? Will it have the sanctity or the purity of a genuine investigation? If a grave suspicion arises with regard to the investigation, should a Constitutional Court close its hands and accept the proposition that as the trial has commenced, the matter is beyond it? That is the “tour de force” of the prosecution and if we allow ourselves to say so it has become “‘id’ee fixe” but in our view the imperium of the Constitutional Courts cannot be stifled or smothered by bon mot or polemic. Of course, the suspicion must have some sort of base and foundation and not a figment of one’s wild imagination. One may think an impartial investigation would be a nostrum but not doing so would be like playing possum. As has been stated earlier facts are self-evident and the grieved protagonist, a person belonging to the lower strata. He should not harbor the feeling that he is an “orphan under law”. As far as question of issuing the direction to CBI to conduct investigation is concerned, there are no fixed guidelines that have been laid down. However, in light of the various decisions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, an inference can be drawn looking at the gravity and the need of probe. In the case titled State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Enforcement of Directorate, Kolkata Zonal Office I & Ors. on 5 March, 2024, the Calcutta High Court, while directing that the cases shall be transferred to CBI observed that: “Under three circumstances, the Court could exercise its constitutional power to transfer the investigation from State Police to CBI. In the case titled State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Enforcement of Directorate, Kolkata Zonal Office I & Ors. on 5 March, 2024, the Calcutta High Court, while directing that the cases shall be transferred to CBI observed that: “Under three circumstances, the Court could exercise its constitutional power to transfer the investigation from State Police to CBI. The circumstances are: (i) when high officials of State authorities are involved; (ii) where the accusation is against top officials of the investigating agency; or (iii) where the investigation prima-facie is found to be tainted/ biased. 19. This Court is conscious of the wide powers conferred upon it by way of Article 226 of the Constitution of India and is also aware of the limitations on exercise of this Constitutional power. This Court is not only having the power and jurisdiction but also have the obligation to protect the fundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of the Constitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. In the case titled State of West Bengal & Ors. vs Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights & Ors. on 17 February, 2010, 2010 3 SCC 571 , the Apex Court while deciding on question: Whether the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct the CBI, established under the Act of 1946 to investigate a cognizable offence, which is alleged to have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of a State, without the consent of the State Government, has held: “The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.” 20. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights.” 20. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while deciding the case titled Subrata Chattoraj vs. Union of India & Ors. 9 May 2014, 2014 AIR SCW 228, transferred the cases registered in different police stations in the State of West Bengal and Odisha from the State Police Agency to CBI and raised following issues: (i) Does the Court have power to direct transfer of cases to the CBI without the consent of the State? (ii) Can exercise of power of Judicial review by the court amount to infringement of the doctrine of separation of power or federal structure? The Apex Court while answering in affirmative to the first issue and in negative to the second issue, has observed that: “When the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 can transfer such cases to the C.B.I within its jurisdiction, the court can also exercise its power of judicial review and direct transfer of investigation to C.B.I. The power of High court under Article 226 cannot be curtailed by invoking Section 6 of the Special Police Act. Section 6 of the Special Police Act cannot be termed as restriction on the power of the Constitutional Courts and thus, the exercise of judicial review by the High Court would not violate the doctrine of separation of power or the federal structure. It was stated that High Courts and Supreme Courts under their jurisdiction have an obligation to protect Fundamental Rights under Part III in particular, Article 21.” 21. It is significant to discuss that the CBI derives its legal powers to investigate three divisions of crime, namely (i) Anti-corruption Division; (ii) Economic Offences Division; and (iii) Special Crimes Division, by virtue of the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. It is significant to discuss that the CBI derives its legal powers to investigate three divisions of crime, namely (i) Anti-corruption Division; (ii) Economic Offences Division; and (iii) Special Crimes Division, by virtue of the provisions of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. Further, the CBI can take over the investigation of a criminal case registered by State Police in the following situations: (i) The concerned State Government makes a request to that effect and the Central Government agrees to it (Central Government generally seeks comment of CBI before deciding upon the request of the State); (ii) The State Government issues notification of consent under section of the Act of 1946 and the Central Government issues notification under section 5 of the DSPE Act; and (iii) The Supreme Court or High Court orders CBI to take up such investigations. 22. As it is claimed, the CBI, being the premier investigative agency, is an elite force playing a major role in preservation of values in public life and in ensuring the health of the national economy. The objective of the CBI is to combat corruption in public life, curb economic and violent crimes; evolve effective systems and procedures for successful investigation; help fight cyber-crime and high technology crime; support state police organizations and law enforcement agencies, nationally and internationally; uphold human rights; develop a scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. 23. It is significant to note that the petitioner has also presented an additional affidavit before this Court to the effect that he has made several written representations to the senior police officials regarding fair investigation in the FIR Nos. 33 and 34/2024 and the FIR No.1/2024 lodged by him. This Court raises questions as why the facts and allegations mentioned in FIR No. 33 and 34/2024 cannot be included in the course of investigation in FIR No. 1/2024 since when the parties, cause of actions and the nature of accusations in subsequent FIRs are same as it is emerging in FIR No.1/2024. A plain look on the averments made in the FIR Nos.33 and 34/2024 and 1/2024 would reflect that it relates to trading of money via online and offline investment made in the broking companies through the sub-broker who is the petitioner in the present case. It would be manifested from the perusal of the FIR no. A plain look on the averments made in the FIR Nos.33 and 34/2024 and 1/2024 would reflect that it relates to trading of money via online and offline investment made in the broking companies through the sub-broker who is the petitioner in the present case. It would be manifested from the perusal of the FIR no. 1/2024 lodged at the instance of the petitioner that he had averred therein that he invested certain money in the broking companies belonging to him and as well as of the other persons. The complainants in the FIR Nos. 33 & 34/2024 are among those other persons referred to by the petitioner in FIR No. 1/2024. Suffice is to say that the factual narrative given in the foregoing paragraphs gives rise to certain serious issues. Since the investments in the present matter, have been made via both online and offline trading platforms, it suggests that lawful modes are involved in the transactions. Despite being the involvement of lawful modes of payments, the State investigative agency is not sufficiently adequate to trace down the real culprits behind the scam of this magnitude and thus the same calls for another probe by an independent investigative agency. Further, since the monetary collections are huge and involves online transactions, dimensions of inter-state ramifications and cyber fraud cannot be ruled out and the same needs to be effectively investigated. A plain look at the matter revealing that the culprits of the case belonging to different regions of the country and it may also be required to collect evidence from different parts of the country. In that situation, this Court feels that instead of the State police, the effective operation of the matter and the needful investigation of the vast canvas should be done by a central agency like CBI. 24. In that situation, this Court feels that instead of the State police, the effective operation of the matter and the needful investigation of the vast canvas should be done by a central agency like CBI. 24. Besides the nature of investigation which is beyond the boundary of one particular State, cyber-crime and dimensions of inter-state ramifications, another important aspect would be the serious aspersions upon the senior police officials, as narrated in the proceeding paras where there are serious allegations are made against the senior police officials regarding distortion of facts, fabrication of false evidence, unlawful detention, tainted and biased investigation, colourable exercise of the power, demand of illegal gratification, extortion like attitude and allegations of connivance with one of the parties of the lis and the following circumstances: (i) The investigation in the FIR No.1/2024 was suddenly stalled at the verge of its conclusion. (ii) The manner in which the FIR Nos. 33 & 34/2024 was lodged during the wee hours, within a span of 24 hours and that too relating to a cause of action which had arisen to the complainant 3-4 years ago. (iii) The arrest of the petitioner under section 151 of the CrPC, in the midnight and keeping him in custody for 24 hours and on the same day lodging of two cases against him related to old cause of action. (iv) The custodial brutality of the concerned SP and Additional SP. (v) The alleged demand of illegal gratification by concerned police officials. (vi) The reopening of the case in FIR no. 476/2021 when the substance of accusation has no relevance with the facts of the case in FIR No.. 1/2024, that too after filing of the closure report with the concerned court. (vii) Most importantly, to make an incisive probe, so as to know about the two papers, portraying it to be the order(s) of the High Court of Rajasthan. To overcome the fishy circumstances as to who prepared it and who supplied it to the police officers. Particularly, the issue as to why a man of common prudence would fabricate a forged order in which a negative final report had already been submitted and protection order is lying in his favour, then why he will inflict liability upon himself for a third party who has no relation with that case. Particularly, the issue as to why a man of common prudence would fabricate a forged order in which a negative final report had already been submitted and protection order is lying in his favour, then why he will inflict liability upon himself for a third party who has no relation with that case. (viii) To avoid the circumstance that if the investigation in this particular case is transferred to any other IPS or RPS of the state police, then there would be possibility of bias related aspersions. The above factors are contributing to propel this Court to direct transfer of the present case to CBI. 25. Accordingly, as an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, these two miscellaneous petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (i) The investigation of FIR nos. 1/2024, 33/2024 and 34/2024 of Police Station Kotwali, Banswara, is directed to be transferred to the CBI; (ii) The Director, CBI is directed to depute a responsible officer to conduct a fresh investigation in all these matters and the questions raised by this Court in the preceding paras; (iii) The case diaries of the FIR nos. 1/2024, 33/2024 and 34/2024 of Police Station Kotwali, Banswara, shall forthwith be handed over to Shri Anil Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General cum Government Advocate, who in turn, shall manage to send the same in safe custody to the Office of Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur; (iv) The case diaries shall be received by the newly-appointed officers of the CBI from the Office of Director General of Police; and (v) The Director of the CBI shall ensure a fair, impartial and expeditious investigation in all the matters and report may be submitted in the concerned Court whereafter without unnecessary delay. 26. Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Petitions as well as the stay applications are disposed of.