Order : 1. The instant Criminal Miscellaneous petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter to be referred as “BNSS”) praying for a direction to be issued to the respondents to conduct fair, proper, impartial and expeditious investigation in case arising out of FIR NO. 234/2024 Police Station, Kareda and in FIR No. 202/2024 Police Station Kareda, District Bhilwara. It is further prayed that the investigation be transferred from the State Police to any other independent agency like Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter to be refered as “CBI”). 2. Heard the petitioner, Parmeshwar Ramlal and N.S. Chundawat, Dy.G.A., public prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State. 3. Without looking into the particulars and contents of the FIR, and without delving into whether the allegations leveled in the FIR are false or true, the concern of this Court is to ascertain why the investigation should not be entrusted to the CBI, especially when one party is expressing his complete distrust in the state agency, asserting that a fair and impartial investigation is not being conducted, and such assertions are not vague, bald, or mere conjecture but are supported by substantive grounds, drawing the attention of this Court to specific incidents. Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate to clarify that the controversy arising from the present FIR is neither complex nor beyond the competence of the State Police rather, such matters are routinely dealt with by police stations across the State. The offence in question is triable by a Magistrate, and investigations of this nature are frequently conducted even by officers of the Head Constable cadre in the normal course of their duties. It is not a case involving intricate mystery or requiring the specialized assistance of a premier investigative agency; rather, it appears to be a simple matter. The core issue before this Court pertains to the serious apprehension raised by the complainant that the State Police would not conduct fair and impartial investigation due to the influence wielded by the accused. The high-ranking position of a close relative of the accused, coupled with the fact that any Investigating Officer assigned to this case would be a subordinate of the accused’s brother, presents a matter of grave concern before this Court. The multiple instances cited by the victim, demonstrating the accused’s influence over the investigative process, cannot be disregarded. 4. The high-ranking position of a close relative of the accused, coupled with the fact that any Investigating Officer assigned to this case would be a subordinate of the accused’s brother, presents a matter of grave concern before this Court. The multiple instances cited by the victim, demonstrating the accused’s influence over the investigative process, cannot be disregarded. 4. The petitioner himself appeared and explained the entire sequence of events to this Court. I was deeply astounded to learn that the Investigating Officer, the Circle Officer of Aasind, who was keeping the file with him since last six months is unaware of the fact that the Additional Director General of Police of the State of Rajasthan is the brother of the accused. The petitioner vehemently contends that he submitted a complaint to the SHO, Kareda, Bhilwara, regarding the theft of goods from his mines; however, no FIR was registered. Subsequently, the petitioner sent emails to the DGP Jaipur, IG, SP Bhilwara, and SHO Kareda, but no action was taken. In response to this inaction, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, who ordered lodging of FIR and carrying investigation but despite several repeated rounds of the petitioner, the FIR was not registered which constrained the petitioner to move a contempt petition and whereupon the learned judicial Magistrate summoned the SHO and warn him to comply the order lest contempt shall be issued. Whereafter, in one other matter, the FIR was not recorded by the SHO and the concerned SP also did not paid any heed to register the same then the petitioner filed a misc. petition before this Court (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7063/2022) seeking registration of an FIR, and a coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 01.08.2023, directed that the FIR be registered. Despite this Court’s order, the FIR was not registered, prompting the petitioner to personally present a certified copy of the Court’s order at the police station, however, the SHO refused to register the FIR. The SHO had been unwilling to carry investigation. After a delay of 47 days, the case was finally registered. He was asked to visit the crime place and to review the footage, where the petitioner pointed out that the CCTV cameras and the DVR were missing. The SHO had been unwilling to carry investigation. After a delay of 47 days, the case was finally registered. He was asked to visit the crime place and to review the footage, where the petitioner pointed out that the CCTV cameras and the DVR were missing. However, the SHO disregarded the issue and failed to prepare the spot report, stating that it would be prepared later. The petitioner also reminded the SHO to take statements of persons present on the spot to know as to who employed them, but this was also not done by him. On the next day, the police officer sent a notice with a constable to the petitioner, directing him to appear at the police station. Between 8:00 AM and 12:00 noon, the police made 20 calls to the petitioner for the same. Later, a notice was sent via Whats App, accusing the petitioner of failing to appear. The petitioner, harboring doubts, chose not to go to the police station that day. Perhaps, as a counter blast or to oppress him, on the same day, an FIR No. 559/2023 was registered against him on 21.09.2023 at P.S. Subhash Nagar under the SC/ST Act for an incident that occurred two months ago. The complainant of the said FIR happened to be a staunch follower of the accused Ramlal Jat, a former Cabinet Minister and highly influential person of the area. He alleged that the petitioner had humiliated/intimidated him two months ago. It is alleged that the presence of that man with the accused former minister is very conspicuous in newspapers, photographs and social media; and in the garb of a case under ST/SC Act, the opposite party wanted to kneel down the petitioner for the conditions desirable to the accused. The petitioner constrained to obtain a stay on arrest from this Court, which remains in force. Instead of pursuing his report against the accused, he had to run pillar to post to avoid his arrest in a false and frivolous case. The petitioner’s statement was recorded later, but further investigation has not proceeded in a previous case. Thereafter, the petitioner traveled to Udaipur to give statement, where his statement was recorded, but he was informed that his statement against two accused persons would not be recorded. The petitioner’s statement was recorded later, but further investigation has not proceeded in a previous case. Thereafter, the petitioner traveled to Udaipur to give statement, where his statement was recorded, but he was informed that his statement against two accused persons would not be recorded. In response, he filed a complaint with the ADGP Crime and subsequently sent a copy to the Director General, requesting a change in the investing agency. However, no action was taken rather a negative final report/closure was proposed in one FIR but in two cases, the investigation is still pending and for which prayer for transfer has been made. The main ground of the closure report had been a rent agreement which was forged by the accused in cahoots with the police officials. The petitioner sought scientific examination of the document from former expert of State FSL and he opined the signature to be forged. Upon which, the petitioner went to lodge a report to PS Kareda but of no avail because of the undue force of the accused person. He was compelled to file another application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate. The learned Magistrate issued an order to register an FIR, but once again, the police failed to act. The petitioner filed a contempt petition, and the officers were summoned before the Court to show the cause of defiance and only whereafter a delay of 22 days, the FIR was finally registered.Another FIR was filed after a delay of almost 24 days, and the investigation in both these cases is still ongoing but for namesake. All these incidents somehow reflects that the agency is under the influence of the accused. 5. The petitioner alleges that he is now remediless and will not get a fair investigation at the hands of the State police and thus will be deprived of getting justice. He makes serious aspersions by contending that one of the accused in this case is a full-blood brother of a serving D.G. Cadre officer whose wife is also an A.D.G. in the State police and, therefore, the IO of these two cases will do nothing against the wishes of their superior officer. He has shown several circumstances where endeavors were made by the local police officers to bow down in accordance with the dictates of the senior police officers. He has shown several circumstances where endeavors were made by the local police officers to bow down in accordance with the dictates of the senior police officers. The circumstances of his harassment by the IO and other local policemen were also described through various small things. He further states that accused Ramlal Jat is a multi-millionaire and that he has been an MLA on three or four occasions in the area and a Cabinet Minister of the State on two or three occasions. He is also a big businessman having mining operations in the same area and consequently has an umpteen number of followers to mount pressure upon him and the local police. He further alleges that police officers of this area are being posted upon recommendations made by him only. During the period, this Court was hearing the petitioner, this Court asked DSP Om Prakash Solanki, who was present in Court, whether he knew the fact that the accused is a near relative of two DG Cadre officers, he showed his ignorance. This means that even after seven months of the FIR, either he does not know who the accused is, or he is under such heavy pressure that he does not want to disclose the true fact before the Court. 6. Though, this Court is not considering the facts presented by the petitioner to be true absolutely but the chain of events as presented by him above are the reasons which prompted this Court to minutely go through the matter and to ponder over the relief sought by the petitioner and at the same time to discuss the principles of law applicable in the case in hand. JUDICIAL TRANSPARENCY: CRYSTALITY AND FAIRNESS 7. At the first, this Court would like to think over the principle of fairness in the functionaries of law and justice and remembers the judgment of then Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart had laid down the famous dictum in Rex Vs. Sussex Justices ; Ex parti McCarthy reported in [1924] 1 KB 256 that “Justice must be seen to be done”. “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. This oft-quoted, historic phrase has been in vogue since almost a hundred years now. Sussex Justices ; Ex parti McCarthy reported in [1924] 1 KB 256 that “Justice must be seen to be done”. “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done”. This oft-quoted, historic phrase has been in vogue since almost a hundred years now. This was an interesting case where the clerk to the justices was a partner in the firm that was representing one of the parties and the opposite party had opposed the fact that the said clerk retired with the justices. Later, it was clarified and stated as a matter of fact that the clerk did not partake in any discussion regarding the case, however, Lord Hewart quashed the conviction passed in the matter stating that what was actually done is not important but what might appear to have been done is important and held as follows: "Nothing is to be done which creates even a suspicion that there has been an improper interference with the course of justice." 8. One of the other judges that formed the coram in this case concurred with Justice Hewart and he observed that even though anything irregular or wrong was not intended by the trial judges but they put themselves in a no-win situation by allowing the clerk to retire with the justices without his presence being waived by the solicitor. The use of this well-established principle in setting aside orders of courts/tribunals/quasi-judicial authorities wherein something irregular or out of order/place appears to have been done by the Indian courts has stood the test of time and being oblivious to the same can shake people's faith in the impartiality of the judiciary. 9. This Court is of the opinion that, if the analogy drawn in Rex v. Sussex Justices (supra) is applied to the present case, it would follow that, even if the investigation is conducted fairly by any police officer or by the present Investigating Officer, the complainant party may still feel that justice has not been served and that the investigation was not conducted impartially. The complainant may harbor the belief that, due to the close familial- ties of the two Director Generals of Police, Cadre officers who are near relatives of the accused, their grievance will not be addressed fairly. The complainant may harbor the belief that, due to the close familial- ties of the two Director Generals of Police, Cadre officers who are near relatives of the accused, their grievance will not be addressed fairly. Furthermore, the complainant may perceive that, given another accused stature as a former Minister on multiple occasions, a cabinet minister, and an influential businessman in the area, his voice will go unheard. This kind of distrust must not undermine the perception of fairness, as it is detrimental to the democratic framework and the values enshrined in the Constitution. The people must not only be assured that justice exists, but also feel its presence in the functioning of the system. ROLE OF POLICE: GUARDIANS OF LAW AND ORDER 10. Now moving on to the role of Police as it play a crucial role in the criminal justice system, being the first point of contact with parties involved in both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, as per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Their responsibilities can be broadly categorized into four main areas: prevention of crime, investigation of crime, maintenance of law and order, and protection of human rights. In terms of crime prevention, the police are tasked with proactively deterring criminal activities through patrolling, maintaining a visible presence, and engaging with communities to identify and address potential risks before they escalate. When a crime occurs, the police are responsible for conducting investigations, gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and apprehending suspects. This investigative role is particularly important in cognizable offences, where the police have the authority to arrest without a warrant and begin investigations without prior judicial approval. Additionally, the police are charged with maintaining law and order by managing public disturbances, protests, or riots, ensuring that peace is preserved while balancing the enforcement of laws with the protection of individual freedoms. Finally, the protection of human rights is an integral part of the police’s duties. They must ensure that the rights of all individuals—whether victims, suspects, or the general public—are respected throughout the criminal justice process, avoiding illegal detention, torture, or any form of abuse, and adhering to legal procedures in all stages of their work. With these extensive responsibilities, the police play a fundamental role in shaping the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system, and their actions significantly impact the outcomes of cases. With these extensive responsibilities, the police play a fundamental role in shaping the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system, and their actions significantly impact the outcomes of cases. Given the rise of technology and increased scrutiny on human rights, the role of the police is constantly evolving to address new challenges in maintaining justice and accountability. FAIR INVESTIGATION: A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT 11. 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 trust of the citizens 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.” 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”). 12. 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. 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. 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”. 13. 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. 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. 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.” In this case also, the higher officials of the State authorities are involved and so the dicta passed in the case of State of West Bengal (supra) applies here squarely. 14. 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.” 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. This Court has carefully considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The Petitioner has made serious allegations of malafide investigation and collusion between the accused persons and the police. The Petitioner has also submitted various facts and circumstances to support his allegations. The conduct of the police in delaying the registration of FIRs and the lack of progress in the investigation raises serious concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the investigation. The allegations of fabrication of evidence are also grave. 18. The Petitioner has also submitted various facts and circumstances to support his allegations. The conduct of the police in delaying the registration of FIRs and the lack of progress in the investigation raises serious concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the investigation. The allegations of fabrication of evidence are also grave. 18. At this juncture, this Court would like to clarify that neither have I gone into the intricacies and niceties of the allegations nor dived deep to ascertain the fact as to whether the allegations made in the two FIRs moved on behalf of the petitioner are false or genuine because, to my mind, it is a task to be carried out by the investigating agency and certainly not by the High Court at a nascent stage. It is a settled position of law that while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when hearing a petition seeking fair investigation or quashing of the FIR, this Court is not supposed to embark upon an inquiry so as to ascertain the genuineness or truthfulness of the allegations. Whether the allegations are frivolous or genuine would actually be the subject of investigation and not of this Court. What this Court is pondering at this juncture is that the churning of facts mentioned in the FIR should be done fairly and impartially, leaving no room for doubt for any party regarding the manner of investigation being biased. The investigation of a case is conducted by agencies recognized under the law. Ordinarily, the cases listed in the State are supposed to be investigated by the State police, and of course, they have several wings like SOG, ACB, CID (CB), etc., but the officers of Rajasthan Police can be deployed or transferred to any of these wings, and the fact remains that they all work under the head of the DG Police. Certainly, a senior-most police officer and a mighty political and wealthy person can influence the fairness of the investigation, as this Court feels. If the investigation of these two cases is directed to be done by any other agency that is not under the supervision of the State police and politically mighty persons in the State, then the expectation of eliciting the truth behind the allegations would come out. If the investigation of these two cases is directed to be done by any other agency that is not under the supervision of the State police and politically mighty persons in the State, then the expectation of eliciting the truth behind the allegations would come out. Neither this Court is saying that the petitioner is right and the accused are wrong because of their high position, nor this Court is declaring vice versa. What matters to the other party, and what affects them, if the investigation is allowed to be done by any other agency? In my view, they should not feel aggrieved by it; rather, they must feel that now the investigation will be conducted by a premier central agency and, of course, in a fair and favor-free atmosphere, leaving no room for doubt or casting aspersions upon them. The accused and his near relative should also want the investigation to be done fairly and should not have any objection if the investigation is conducted by the CBI rather it is expected from them to have faith in law and their trust should also be there in the investigating agency or the inquiry conducted by any other agency. If the allegations are false, frivolous, vexatious, or scandalous, then this shall also be elucidated after an investigation by an agency sitting on a different pedestal than the State Agency. They too have senior officers, fully equipped with modern techniques for unearthing the truth behind the curtains and are more acquainted with scientific technology and methodologies like brain mapping and lie detectors, etc. 19. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that it is necessary to transfer the investigation of the two FIRs to the CBI to ensure a fair and impartial investigation and to secure the ends of justice and due to continuous delays, non-compliance with court orders, and apparent influence from politically connected individuals affecting the impartiality of the Rajasthan Police. Despite multiple orders from the Magistrate Court to register FIRs, the local police repeatedly failed to act until contempt petitions were filed, indicating deliberate inaction. Furthermore, after registering the cases, the police either delayed or failed to conduct a proper investigation. Despite multiple orders from the Magistrate Court to register FIRs, the local police repeatedly failed to act until contempt petitions were filed, indicating deliberate inaction. Furthermore, after registering the cases, the police either delayed or failed to conduct a proper investigation. The petitioner claims that he used to be threatened by the local police and has faced pressure, threats, and surveillance, and attempt to intimidate him, if it is so then certainly it would obstruct the cause of justice. Additionally, the involvement of high-ranking officials and the repeated transfer of the investigation between various police officers, without meaningful progress, raises serious concerns about bias and lack of accountability. Given the political influence and apparent attempts to manipulate the investigation, only an independent and credible agency like the CBI can ensure a fair, unbiased, and transparent inquiry. This Court also feels that the message in society should not go wrong that the law bows down or succumbs before power, influence, or the mighty, and that justice remains undone. 20. In view of the discussions made above, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition. 21. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Misc. Petition is allowed in the following terms:- (a) The FIR No. 234/2024 P.S. Kareda and FIR No. 202/2024 P.S. Kareda, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan is directed to be transferred to the CBI for further investigation in the matter; (b) The Director, CBI is directed to depute a responsible officer to conduct a fresh investigation in these two matters; (c) The Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara shall make arrangements for sending the files alonwith complete record pertaining thereto through the State authorities to the Office of CBI. (d) The case diaries shall be received by the newly- appointed officers of the CBI from the Office of Director General of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan; (e) 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. (f) Shri Mukesh Rajpurohit, learned DSG shall also intimate the officers of the CBI about the order. 22. The stay petition stands disposed of.