[2025:RJ-JP:40580] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 54/2025 In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1431/2024 Tejpal Choudhary Son Of Shri Anandilal, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Boyatwala, In Front Of Benad Railway Station, Benad Road, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. The Through Officer, Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur (South). 3. Rajendra Agarwal, Minister Ganpati Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti, Registered No. 2668/l, Jaipur, Nadi Ka Phatak, Benad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Tripathi for Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 07/10/2025 1. By moving instant misc. application, petitioner has raised a grievance that investigation in FIR No.12/2015 registered at Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur City (South) for offences under Sections 420, 406, 467,468, 471 and 447 of IPC, has not been completed so far, despite order dated 27.03.2024 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.1431/2024. 2. Counsel for petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this misc. application with liberty to approach before the jurisdictional magistrate, for ventilating of his grievance, in view of judgment [2025:RJ-JP:40580] (2 of 2) [CRLMA-54/2025] delivered by the Apex Court in Case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2008) 2 SCC 409], wherein it was held that:- “17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.” The above principles of law have been followed and reiterated by the Apex Court in case of M. Subramaniam Vs. S. Janaki [(2020) 16 SCC 728]. 3. Permission is granted. 4. Accordingly, instant misc. application is disposed of with the liberty as prayed for. 5. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/98-s