[2025:RJ-JP:778] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2339/2024 Vinay Kumar S/o Shri Mahavir Jangir, R/o Village And Post Ardawata, Khatiyo Ki Dhani, Tehsil Chidawa District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. 3. The Dy. Commissioner IOF Police, Jaipur Metropolitan West, Jaipur. 4. The S.H.O., Police Station Chitrakoot, Jaipur Metropolitan (West), Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 10991/2022 Gaurav Kapil son of Shri Arun Kumar Kapil, Aged About 41 Years, Resident of Platinum Amaltas, Sirsi Road, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Deputy Commissioner of Police, (West), Mini Secretariat, Banipark, Jaipur. 3. Station House Officer, Police Station Chitrakoot, Jaipur. 4. Investigating Officer Police Station Chitrakoot, Jaipur. 5. Vinay Kumar Son of Mahaveer, Aged About 37 Years, Resident of Gram Post Ardawata, Khatiyo Ke Dhani, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. 6. Jagdish Jangid Son of Mahaveer, Aged About 41 Years, Resident of Gram Post Ardawata, Khatiyo Ke Dhani, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma Mr. R.R. Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP [2025:RJ-JP:778] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2339/2024] JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/01/2025 1. S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.10991/2022 has been submitted by the petitioner Gaurav Kapil for quashing of FIR No.398/2022 registered with Police Station Chitrakoot, Jaipur West registered for the offence under Section(s) 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 385 & 120B of the IPC and at the same time, the complainant-petitioner Vijay Kumar has submitted S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2339/2024 seeking directions for expeditious investigation of the aforesaid FIR. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, Gaurav Kapil submits that the complainant is not known to the petitioner even then the police is bent upon to implicate him falsely without there being any evidence against him. Counsel submits that the petitioner was granted indulgence of anticipatory bail and he is ready and willing to join the investigation. Counsel submits that even thereafter the Police is bent upon to submit charge-sheet against the petitioner. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 4. After going through the contents of the F.I.R., it appears that allegations levelled in the aforesaid F.I.R. disclose that the alleged offence is cognizable and the matter requires investigation. While exercising the discretionary powers contained under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is not supposed to make a fishing and roving [2025:RJ-JP:778] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2339/2024] enquiry to embark upon the probe in order to ascertain the genuineness and reliability of the allegations levelled in the F.I.R. Certainly, it would be a task to be undertaken by the investigating agency, therefore, this Court does not deem it just and proper to interfere with the investigation. 5. However, the petitioner-Gourav Kapil may file a representation before the Investigating Officer, who shall consider the averments of the same and in case, during the investigation, he comes to the conclusion that cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner, then before arresting the petitioner, he shall ensure the compliance of the provisions contained under Section 41A Cr.P.C. It is expected from the Investigating Officer to conclude the investigation, expeditiously, as early as possible, and submit the result of the same before the competent court of law without any further delay as the FIR was registered way-back in the year, 2022. In case, the result of investigation is not submitted by the Investigating Officer or expeditiously, if any delay is caused then the complainant would be at liberty to approach this Court again by way of filing of an application for revival of this petition. 6. With the aforesaid observations, both the criminal misc. petitions stand disposed of. 7. Stay applications and all other pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GARIMA /91-92