Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Urn: Crlmp / 17157U / 2025Sanjay Bhai vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:21113] (1 of 5) [CRLMP-9782/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 9782/2025
Sanjay Bhai S/o Ghamer Bhai, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of
Aagyol Tehsil Himmatnagar Dist Sabarkanta Gujarat, Presently
Residing At Sirodi Anadra Sirohi
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Pareek
Mr. Umesh Kant Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
Conclusion of Arguments &
Reserved on : 04/05/2026
Pronounced on : 07/05/2026
1. The present criminal misc. petition has been filed by the
petitioner challenging a part of the order dated 29.07.2025,
passed in Special Sessions Case No. 41/2025, arising out of FIR
No. 24/2025, whereby the Special Judge (POCSO Cases), Sirohi,
ordered/suggested mode of investigation and directed the
investigating agency to investigation in a particular manner.
2. The petitioner-complainant, father of the victim, had lodged
the FIR No.24/2025 dated 23.02.2025 at Police Station Andara,
District Sirohi, Rajasthan, against accused – Mushtaq Khan for
committing offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 74, 78(2),
351(2), 352, BNS, 2023 and under Sections 7/8, 11/12 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner, being the(Uploaded
complainant in the present matter, had been
on 07/05/2026 at 11:44:30 AM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 10:53:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21113] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-9782/2025]
gravely prejudiced by the approach adopted by the learned POCSO
Court. It was contended that the learned POCSO Court had
proceeded on a presumption that accused Mushtaq had been
falsely implicated; however, instead of recording a clear and
reasoned satisfaction to that effect in accordance with law, the
learned POCSO Court had directed further investigation with an
implicit mandate to arrive at a particular conclusion. Such a
course, it was argued, amounted to unwarranted interference with
the statutory domain of the investigating agency.
3.1. Learned counsel further argued that the POCSO Court had
exceeded its jurisdiction while directing the Investigating Officer to
hold inquiry in a particular manner. It was submitted that though
the Court, upon satisfying itself, could always ask the
Investigating Authority to further inquire into the matter, it could
not direct the Investigating Officer to conduct inquiry in a
particular manner.
3.2. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner placed reliance on judgments passed by this Court in
the case of Dinesh Soni & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr. : S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.1799/2023, decided on
18.04.2023 and Mahaveer Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. :
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.7453/2025, decided on 07.02.2026.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor, opposing the submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the learned POCSO
Court had acted strictly within the bounds of its jurisdiction and in
furtherance of ensuring a fair, complete, and effective
investigation. It was submitted that the order directing further
investigation did not reflect any preconceived conclusion or
presumption regarding false implication of the accused, but rather
(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 11:44:30 AM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 10:53:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21113] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-9782/2025]indicated a judicial application of mind to the deficiencies and gaps
noticed in the investigation. He argued that the Court was
empowered to seek further investigation where the material on
record appeared insufficient or raised unanswered questions, and
such directions could not be construed as interference in the
domain of the investigating agency. It was further contended that
no mandate had been issued to arrive at a particular conclusion,
and the investigating agency had retained full independence in
conducting the inquiry. Therefore, the allegation that the learned
Court had acted in excess of its jurisdiction or vitiated the
proceedings was misconceived and the present petition deserved
to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to
reproduce the observations made by the learned POCSO court at
Page No.3 of its order dated 29.07.2025 :-
^^vkjksi i= izLrqr gksus ij U;k;ky; }kjk vkns’k fnukad 25-04-
2025 ikfjr djrs gq, dbZ fcanqvksa dks mYysf[kr dj mu ij vuqla/kku
fd;s tkus gsrq i=koyh dks vfxze vuqla/kku gsrq izsf’kr fd;kA ftl ij
vfxze vuqla/kku o`Rrkf/kdkjh] o`r jsonj }kjk fd;k tkdj vkjksi i=
izLrqr fd;k x;k gS rFkk mDr vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk vfHk;qDr
eq”rkd ds eksckbZy dks gSd dj dh xbZ pSV ds laca/k esa fdlh vU; dk
lafyIr gksuk ugha ekurs gq, iwoZ vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk fn;s x;s
fu’d’kZ dks gh lgh ekurs gq, vkjksi i= izLrqr fd;k x;kA
U;k;ky; vkns”k fnukad 25-04-2025 esa fo”ks’k :i ls 3 fcanq
mYysf[kr fd;s Fks fd ftl izdkj ls vfHk;qDr fo’.kq] ihfMrk o ihfMrk
dh cgu us feydj vfHk;qDr eq”rkd ds eksckbZy dks gSd djus ds
mijkar pSV dh x;h gS vkSj mls crkSj lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS mlesa
vU; O;fDr;ksa dh lgHkkfxrk D;k jgh gSA mDr pSV esa /keZ ifjorZu
djkus] vkfFkZd izyksHku nsus rFkk fudkg djus ds fy, mRizsfjr djus ds
rF;ksa ls /kkjk 299 o 302 Hkkjrh; U;k; lafgrk ds vijk/k ds laca/k esa
vuqla/kku fd;k tkos rFkk ftl izdkj ls mDr pSV dks dwVjfpr djus
ds mijkar vfHk;qDr eq”rkd ds fo:) iksDlks vf/kfu;e dk izdj.k ntZ
(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 11:44:30 AM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 10:53:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21113] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-9782/2025]djok;k x;k gS mlls /kkjk 22 iksDlks vf/kfu;e dk vijk/k D;ksa ugha
curk gS] bl laca/k esa Hkh vuqla/kku fd;k tkosA**
7. The learned POCSO court, while taking cognizance, vide
impugned order, observed that the investigation was not properly
conducted and that there were serious lapses. Therefore, it was
directed that further investigation be made by the competent
senior officer. The grievance of the petitioner raised in the present
petition is confined only to the extent that such observation for
investigating the matter in a particular manner cannot be granted.
8. This Court on perusal of the judgments passed in the case of
Dinesh Soni (supra) so also Mahaveer (supra) as cited by
learned counsel for the petitioner, is of the considered opinion that
the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and
corresponding provisions under the BNSS, 2023 provide detailed
procedure as to how investigation has to be made. It is trite law
that investigation is purely a prerogative of the Executive and the
Court cannot interfere with the same, particularly with regard to
the manner of conducting investigation. This Court is of the view
that after investigation is over and report is submitted, it is the
exclusive domain of the Court to accept or reject the final report
and proceed accordingly. As a matter of fact, the learned POCSO
court while directing the Superintendent of Police to get the
matter further investigated, traveled beyond its scope of
interference while directing the Investigating Officer to hold
investigation in a particular manner.
9. Considering the observations made in the impugned order as
reproduced above and the precedent law cited by learned counsel
for the petitioner, the present petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order dated 29.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge,
(POCSO Cases), Sirohi, is set aside to the extent where the
(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 11:44:30 AM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 10:53:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:21113] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-9782/2025]learned POCSO court ordered / suggested the mode of
investigation and directed Investigating Agency to investigate the
matter in a particular manner.
10. Needless to observe that the Investigating Officer would be
required to further investigate the matter in accordance with law.
11. All pending applications stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 07/05/2026 at 11:44:30 AM)
(Downloaded on 07/05/2026 at 10:53:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link
