[2026:RJ-JP:10832] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1900/2021 Vinod @ Kamod Meena Son Of Shri Gujarmal Meena, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Rajaur, Tehsil Todabheem, District Karauli (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (Raj). 4. S.H.O. Police Station Tunga, Jaipur City East (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prameshwar Lal Pilania For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Sing Dhakar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/03/2026 1. By way of filling the instant petition, a prayer has been made by the complainant-petitioner for issuing directions to the investigating agency to make fair and impartial investigation in FIR No.308/2019 registered with Police Station Tunga, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 & 201 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after conducting unfair investigation, the police has submitted charge- sheet against the accused-persons for the offence under Sections 279 & 304 A of IPC, whereas the alleged incident is a case of Sections 302, 120-B & 201 of IPC. He submits that against the aforesaid charge-sheet, an application was submitted by the petitioner before the concerned Magistrate making a prayer for [2026:RJ-JP:10832] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-1900/2021] issuing directions to the concerned investigating agency for further and fair investigation, but the learned Magistrate vide order dated 25.02.2021, has not accepted the aforementioned prayer of the petitioner, hence the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant petition. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer. 4. Heard and considering the submissions made at the bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the petitioner has already approached the learned Magistrate by way of filing an application for issuing directions which have been sought before this Court and the said application has already been decided by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 25.02.2021 and the prayer of the complainant-petitioner has not been allowed. 6. In the instant petition no such challenge has been made to the aforesaid order dated 25.02.2021, hence no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant petition unless and until a clear and specific challenge is made to the aforesaid order. 7. Considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case, the instant petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition assailing the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate. 8. Accordingly, the present petition has been disposed of. 9. All pending application(s), if any, as well as stay application also stands disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GAURAV SHARMA /16