[2025:RJ-JP:49105] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.6837/2025 Bhanwar Lal S/o Sh. Kishna, R/o Bachhraj Ki Jhopdiya, Haripura, Police Station Sadar, Bundi, Tehsil And District Bundi (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. The Inspector General Of Police, Kota Range, Kota. 3. The Superintendent Of Police, Bundi, District Bundi. 4. Arun Mishara, Deputy Superintendent Of Police ( Women Atrocity) Bundi ( Investigating Officer). 5. Dayaram S/o Sh. Kalyan, R/o Bachhraj Ki Jhopdiya, Haripura, Police Station Sadar, Tehsil And District Bundi (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Junaid Khan for Mr. Asgar Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/12/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a prayer has been made by the petitioner for transfer of investigation of FIR No.428/2024 registered with Police Station Sadar Bundi, District Bundi. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the FIR was registered under Sections 323, 341, 166-A and 304-A IPC and under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the case was found to be proved against the petitioner under Section 304-A IPC only, but at a later stage without any basis, Section 304 IPC was [2025:RJ-JP:49105] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-6837/2025] incorporated to show gravity in the matter. Learned counsel submits that, under these circumstances, the petitioner has no ray of justice at the hands of the Investigating Officer, who is currently making investigation in the present matter. Hence, the relief sought for be granted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that initially the FIR was registered under Section 304-A IPC. But the Superintendent of Police, i.e., higher police officer, handed over the investigation to other Investigating Officer, who found that the instant case falls within the purview of Section 304 IPC, but not under Section 304-A IPC. Hence, under these circumstances, the relief sought for should not be granted in favour of the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the deceased has expired due to electrocution. It has been alleged in the FIR that there was electric current flowing in the wires on the boundary walls of the field. These wires were connected directly to the transformer and due to excess flow of electricity and when the deceased came in touch with the aforesaid wires, he died. 6. This Court cannot adjudge, at this stage, whether such an act of the petitioner falls within the purview of Section 304-A IPC or Section 304 IPC. It is within the domain of the Investigating Agency to investigate the matter, but it is expected from the Investigating Officer to make a fair and impartial investigation and submit the report of investigation in accordance with law before the competent court of law. [2025:RJ-JP:49105] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-6837/2025] 7. With the aforesaid observations, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/32