- (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 10.09.2009, passed by the Project Director EGS, and aggrieved by the lodging of FIR, FIR No.19/2010, registered at Thana Gazi, Alwar, for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 409 IPC, and aggrieved by the investigation therein, the petitioner has approached this Court.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner happens to be the Sarpanch, who had defeated the complainant, Ram Karan Meena in a panchayat election. According to the petitioner, since the elections were around the corner, Ram Karan Meena lodged a false complaint before the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department. In the said complaint, he levelled sixteen allegations against the petitioner. THE Secretary appointed the Chief Executive Officer as the Inquiry Officer. On 01.07.2009, the Chief Executive Officer submitted his report wherein it was clearly stated that out of sixteen allegations, thirteen allegations were found to be false, and for two allegations the records were not available, therefore, no comments could be made. As far as the allegations with regard to the Samudayik Bhawan was concerned, according to the Chief Executive Officer, the said Bhawan was built at the place for which the sanction and consent was given, and the work completed Utilization Certificate was also issued. But, meanwhile, vide letter dated 10.09.2009, the Project Director EGS brought it to the notice of the District Collector that certain corrupt practices were committed by the petitioner while implementing the NAREGA project. THErefore, a FIR needs to be lodged against him. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing a revision petition under Section 97 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act before the Minister for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department. Vide order dated 15.09.2009, the Hon'ble Minister stayed the order dated 10.09.2009. However, since the complainant was aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2009, he challenged the said order before this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12527/2009. Vide order dated 07.10.2009, this Court stayed the operation of the order dated 15.09.2009 for a period of two weeks. Interestingly, in the reply filed by the State Government in the said writ petition, the State Government has exonerated the petitioner. However, despite this fact, a charge-sheet was submitted to the petitioner at be behest of Minister for Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department. Meanwhile relying on the letter dated 10.09.2009, written by the Project Director EGS, the Chief Executive Officer wrote to the Development Officer to take action against the petitioner. Consequently, on 17.02.2010, the aforementioned FIR was lodged against the petitioner by the Development Officer Panchayat Samiti Thana Ghazi. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Rajeev Surana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the letter dated 10.09.2009 has been written by a person who is incompetent to write the said letter. For, the entire matter is covered under the Panchayati Raj Department. Therefore, the Project Director EGS does not have the competence to direct that a FIR be registered against the petitioner. Secondly, the FIR has been lodged on the basis of the said letter. Therefore, the basis of lodging of the FIR is misplaced. Thirdly, the entire battle is between the petitioner and his political rival, Ram Karan Meena. Although Ram Karan Meena had lodged a complaint containing nineteen allegations, but most of the allegations were found to be false by the Chief Executive Officer. Even the allegations that the Samudayik Bhawan was not constructed at the correct place, even this allegation has not been accepted by the State. Yet the State has lodged the FIR against the petitioner. Therefore, the FIR should be quashed and set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the FIR, and the other documents submitted by the petitioner. It is, indeed, a settled position of law that the investigation is the arena of the police. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited as far as investigation in a criminal case is concerned. Many issues arise while dealing with the investigation in a criminal case. These issues may relate to the disputed question of facts. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that this Court cannot enter into disputed questions of facts under its writ jurisdiction. In the present case, the issue whether the Samudayik Bhawan was constructed at the correct place or not, whether the quality material was used in the said construction or not, the role of the petitioner as the Sarpanch in implementing the NAREGA project, all these disputed question of facts are involved. Therefore, these questions cannot be decided by this Court under its writ jurisdiction.
(3.) MOREOVER, these issues have to be investigated by the police. The Investigating Officer is duty bound to consider the reply filed by the State in the writ petition filed by Ram Karan Meena. The I.O. is equally bound to consider the consequences of the said reply on the out come of the investigation. Of course, the I.O. is legally bound to carry out a fair and fearless investigation. However, this Court cannot and should not stop a investigation when allegations make out a prima facie case against the petitioner. Hence, this Court does not find any merit in this petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. However, the Investigating Officer is directed to objectively assess all the evidence collected by him and only then to decide whether a charge-sheet should be submitted or not. Any observations made by this Court should not influence the objective assessment of the evidence. ;