[2026:RJ-JP:32] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5911/2025 Rafiq S/o Fazlu, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Kabristan Road, Mammu Colony Mandi Ke Piche, Mahuwa District Dausa (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs Govt. Secretariat Jaipur. 2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur. 3. Superintendent Of Police, Dausa District Dausa (Raj.). 4. The Station House Officer, Police Station, Mahuwa, District Dausa (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rafiq present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/01/2026 1. In “Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr.” reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or to give a call for boycott of Courts. Calls given by Bar Association or Bar Council for such purpose cannot require the Court to adjourn the matters. In the case of “Krishnakant Tamrakar versus the State of Madhya Pradesh” reported in (2018) 17 SCC 27, it has been held that strike by advocates is in violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same tantamount to contempt. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has further held that the office bearers are liable to be removed from the office for passing resolution for [2026:RJ-JP:32] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-5911/2025] strike. In view of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (Supra) and Krishnakant Tamrakar (Supra), since the advocates are abstaining from work today, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits. 2. The instant criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 528 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the petitioner seeking direction for conducting fair and impartial investigation in FIR No.333/2025 registered at Police Station Mahuwa, District Dausa (Raj.). 3. Petitioner filed the aforementioned FIR against the accused persons named in the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2) & 318(4) of BNS, 2023. It is the case of the petitioner that police authorities have not taken any action against the accused person and thus appropriate direction be given for fair and impartial investigation of the FIR. 4. This Court is of the opinion that in view of the observations made and directions given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P., AIR 2008 SC 907, the Judicial Magistrate has very wide powers to enquire about the investigation and for monitoring the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly. Apex Court has further observed that the High Court should discourage the practice of filing Writ Petitions or petitions under Section 528 B.N.S.S simply because a person has a grievance that investigation has not been done properly by the Police. For this grievance, the remedy lies before the concerned Magistrate. [2026:RJ-JP:32] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-5911/2025] 5. In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court, I do not find any force in the Criminal Misc. Petition and the same is accordingly disposed. Stay application stands disposed. 6. However, petitioner would be free to approach the concerned Magistrate to inquire about the progress of the investigation. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /401