[2026:RJ-JP:15983] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 762/2026 Kallan S/o Shri Mehtaf Khan, Aged About 61 Years, R/o A-22, Bandha Basti, Dem No 1, Bada Park, Nahri Ka Naka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Jamil Mohammed, Aged About 55 Years, R/o House No. 19-20, Bada Park, Bandha Basti, Dem No 1, Nahri Naka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Sahil S/o Jamil Mohammed, R/o House No. 19-20, Bada Park, Bandha Basti, Dem No 1, Nahri Naka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. 4. Kadir S/o Jamil Mohammed, R/o House No. 19-20, Bada Park, Bandha Basti, Dem No 1, Nahri Naka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. 5. Hinna W/o Jamil Mohammed, Aged About 50 Years, R/o House No. 19-20, Bada Park, Bandha Basti, Dem No 1, Nahri Naka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. 6. Najrana D/o Jamil Mohamed, R/o House No. 19-20, Bada Park, Bandha Basti, Dem No 1, Nahri Naka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. 7. Saddam S/o Munsi Khan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o House No. 19-20, Bada Park, Bandha Basti, Dem No 1, Nahri Naka, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. 8. Jumerati S/o Not Known, Lining On Rent In The House Of Jamil Mohamed ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Rekha Jain, Adv. through V.C. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Judgment / Order 16/04/2026 vkbZ-,- 01@2026 ij lquk x;kA vkosnu esa of.kZr rF;ksa ,oa izLrqr rdksaZ dks e/;utj j[krs gq, vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkdj dk;kZy; }kjk bafxr vk{ksiksa dks oso fd;k tkrk gSA [2026:RJ-JP:15983] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-762/2026] ;kfpdk ij lquk x;kA ;kph&ifjoknh dh vksj ls ;g vkijkf/kd fofo/k ;kfpdk /kkjk 528 ch-,u-,l-,l- ds rgr izLrqr dj fuosnu fd;k x;k fd orZeku izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ esa ;kph] ifjoknh gS rFkk iqfyl }kjk bl ekeys esa fu"i{k vuqla/kku ugha fd;k tk jgk gS] vr% mfpr funsZ'k iznku fd;k tkosA fo}ku vf/koDrk ;kph&ifjoknh rFkk fo}ku yksd vfHk;kstd dh cgl lquh x;h] vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk U;kf;d n`"Vkar Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 2008 SC 907 ds ekeys esa ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd fu"i{k vuqla/kku dks lqfuf'pr djus gsrq lacaf/kr eftLVªsV U;k;ky; vuqla/kku dks eksfuVj djus o vko';d funsZ'k nsus gsrq l{ke gS rFkk ,sls ekeyksa esa lkekU; :i ls /kkjk 528 ch-,u-,l-,l-@482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk dh 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gS rFkk ,slh izo`fRr fu:Rlkfgr gksus ;ksX; gSA bl fu.kZ; ds iSjk la[;k 15 o 25 lqlaxr gSa tks fuEukuqlkj gS& "15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. 25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3)." [2026:RJ-JP:15983] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-762/2026] mijksDr fof/kd O;oLFkk vkfn dks ns[krs gq, bl U;k;ky; }kjk ;g ;kfpdk Lohdkj fd;k tkuk mfpr ugha gS] vr% ;kfpdk [kkfjt dh tkrh gS rFkk lkFk gh ;kph&ifjoknh dks ;g Lora=rk iznku dh tkrh gS fd og viuh O;Fkk ds laca/k esa lacaf/kr eftLVªsV@U;k;ky; ds le{k viuk i{k j[kus gsrq Lora= gSA (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J Mittal /117