Rameshwar Tiwari v. State

Judgment

3. Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP Superintendent of Police, District- Tonk (Raj.) The Investigation Officer, Police Station- Niwai, District- Tonk (Raj.)

Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Hanumangah Junction, District- Hanumangarh. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Atul Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA 24/03/2025 Order

1. At the very outset, counsel for the petitioner has made an oral request for deleting the name of the respondent No.4- Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Goyal from the array of respondents.

2. In view of the oral request made by counsel for the petitioner, the name of respondent No.4- Arvind Kumar stands deleted.

3. Office is directed to mark delete against the name of the respondent No.4- Arvind Kumar. [2025:RJ-JP:13269] (2 of 6) [CRLW-333/2025]

4. The present criminal writ petition has been filed by the complainant-petitioner with a challenge to order dated 15.02.2025 issued by the Office of District & Sessions Judge, Tonk (Raj.), whereby, in exercise of powers given under Section 448 of BNSS, the matters pertaining to the FIR Nos.61/2021, 62/2021 & 63/2021 registered at Police Station Niwai, District Tonk have been withdrawn from the Court of Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai and have been assigned to Additional Senior Civil Judge & Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tonk.

5. Counsel for the complainant-petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed by the learned District Judge without jurisdiction as no criminal proceedings were pending before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai which could be withdrawn and assigned to some other Court. Counsel further submits that no opportunity of hearing was allowed to the present petitioner that is the complainant. Counsel also submits that no reasons have been assigned in the impugned order for withdrawal of the cases from one Court and assigning them to the other Court, as is required to be mentioned in view of the provisions of Section 448 of BNSS.

6. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the complainant-petitioner and also perused the material made available on record.

7. The three FIRs bearing Nos. 61/2021, 62/2021 & 63/2021 were lodged by the present complainant-petitioner against certain persons. The complainant-petitioner earlier also preferred S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.1640/2021 (Rameshwar Tiwari Vs. State [2025:RJ-JP:13269] (3 of 6) [CRLW-333/2025] of Raj. & Ors.) with a prayer to issue directions to the police authorities for fair investigation. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 09.12.2021, as the petitioner did not raise his grievance before the concerned Magistrate. The complainant- petitioner again approached this Court by filing S.B. Criminal Misc. (Petition) No.1273/2022 (Rameshwar Tiwari Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) seeking fair, impartial and expeditious investigation of case arising out of F.I.R. No.61/2021 registered at Police Station Niwai, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 474, 193, 197, 166 & 166-A of IPC.

8. The aforesaid criminal misc. petition was disposed of vide order dated 05.02.2022 with liberty to the complainant-petitioner to make a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Tonk along with all documents on which he places reliance and the Superintendent of Police was expected to consider the averments made in that representation.

9. The investigation of all the three FIRs cases is being supervised by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai as those were registered at Police Station Niwai, District Tonk, which is in his jurisdiction.

10. Perused the material made available on record, including the order dated 13.01.2025 and also the order passed by this Court on 24.01.2025 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 502/2025 (Arvind Kumar Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.) as regards the FIR No.61/2021 which are on record.

11. The order passed by this Court on 24.01.2025, speaks of the fact that there were some kind of differences between the Investigating Officer and the Presiding Officer of the Court of [2025:RJ-JP:13269] (4 of 6) [CRLW-333/2025] learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai. The differences are also reflected from the orders dated 31.01.2025 (Annex.-9) &

03.01.2025 (Annex.-7). That matter is subjudice before this High Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.502/2025 and therefore no observation are required to be made at this stage.

12. It has also come on record that earlier after conclusion of the investigation the Police has submitted final report in the matter, however, further investigation was ordered.

13. In view of the differences between the Investigating Officer and the Presiding Officer in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai as reflected from the material placed on record and so as to avoid any kind of complications, the District Judge has passed the order dated 15.02.2025 withdrawing the case from one particular Court and assigning them to some other Court and in such facts and circumstances of the case, order cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary.

14. Counsel for the complainant-petitioner also raised an issue that the impugned order passed by the District Judge is without jurisdiction.

15. The District Judge has passed the order dated 15.02.2025 withdrawing the cases from the Court of Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai and assigning them to the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tonk as the same is within his jurisdiction as both the Courts are under his jurisdiction.

16. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since no criminal proceedings were pending, the same cannot be transferred to other Court. [2025:RJ-JP:13269] (5 of 6) [CRLW-333/2025]

17. On perusal of the material made available on record, this Court finds that several orders have been passed in regard to investigation and in such circumstances, it cannot be said that no proceedings were pending before the Court.

18. The another issue raised by the counsel for the complainant- petitioner is that the complainant-petitioner has not been allowed an opportunity of hearing before issuing the order impugned. When the petitioner was asked what prejudices is caused to him by the order impugned? The learned counsel for the complainant- petitioner is not able to point out any specific reason or grievance which has caused prejudice to him. Both places of Court sittings are nearly places and almost at equal distance from the residence of petitioner.

19. Section 448 of BNSS clearly authorizes the District Judge for transferring the matter from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his sessions division. Section 448 of BNSS reads as under:- Power of Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals- "(1) Whenever it is made to appear to a Sessions Judge that an order under this sub-section is expedient for the ends of justice, he may order that any particular case be transferred from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his sessions division. (2) The Sessions Judge may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on his own initiative. (3) The provisions of sub-sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (9) of section 447 shall apply in relation to an application to the Sessions Judge for an order under sub-section (1) as they apply in relation to an application to the High Court for an order sub-section (1) of section 447, except that sub- section (7) of that section shall so apply as if for the word, "sum" occurring therein, the words "sum not exceeding ten thousand rupees" were substituted"

20. The S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.502/2025 has been filed by Arvind Kumar as regards the observations made against him by [2025:RJ-JP:13269] (6 of 6) [CRLW-333/2025] the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Niwai, District Tonk and this Court vide its order dated 24.01.2025 was stayed the effect and operation of the orders 20.12.2024 & 03.01.2025 by which the learned trial Court were made observations against Arvind Kumar.

21. Taking into consideration, the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the order dated 15.02.2025 issued by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Tonk and feels that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order under challenge is just and proper.

22. Hence, this criminal writ petition is dismissed.

23. Stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. DIVYA SAINI /87 (GANESH RAM MEENA),J