[2025:RJ-JP:32131] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3587/2025 Sonpal Singh S/o Late Shri Kailashiram, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Aam Ka Pura, Nadauli, Rajakhera, District Dholpur (Raj). Presently Serving As Member, Child Welfare Committee, Dholpur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Smt. Madhu Sharma W/o Bhanu Sharma, R/o Nana Saheb Ka Bada, Bajariya, Dholpur (Raj). Presently Chairperson, Child Welfare Committee, Dholpur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Deepak Sharma, Mr. Pushpendra Singh Rana Mr. Chandraveer Dhayal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 18/08/2025 1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-complainant, seeking to transfer the investigation in FIR No.12/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Dholpur, District Dholpur for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, to ensure fair, impartial and expeditious investigation. 2. It has inter alia been stated that respondent No.2 happens to be Chairperson of Child Welfare Committee, Dholpur and for a long period of four months, she never appeared in person to look after the functioning of Committee, rather put her signatures from Jaipur and drew salary. [2025:RJ-JP:32131] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3587/2025] 3. Public Prosecutor has placed on record a copy of investigation report dated 29.06.2025. As per investigation report, it has been found that the allegations levelled by the petitioner in the FIR, were not correct, hence, a negative final report has been proposed by the Police, which is likely to be submitted before the Court and the information in respect of proposed negative final report, has already been sent to the petitioner. A copy of investigation report dated 29.06.2025 is taken on record. 4. Counsel for petitioner states that respondent No.2 is an influential person, hence, fair investigation has not been conducted in the present FIR. Moreover his submission is that despite filing of an application by petitioner to seize the CDR, same has not been done. In addition, it has been pointed out that an application before the concerned Judicial Magistrate has also been filed, but no orders thereupon has been passed. 5. Taking into consideration the nature of allegation, investigation report and the grievance of petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner may pursue his application before the Judicial Magistrate, for conducting investigation/ further investigation in the present FIR, by summoning/ seizing CDR. Further, petitioner has a remedy to file protest petition as well against the final negative report. 6. This Court further finds that as far as inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is concerned, at this stage, same is not liable to be exercised, because petitioner has an alternative and statutory remedy before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. [2025:RJ-JP:32131] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3587/2025] 7. With aforesaid observation/ liberty, present misc. petition stands disposed of. 8. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/18