RAHUL SHARMA ALIAS SATYENDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that in total seventeen FIRs have been lodged against him in different districts of Rajasthan. However, the offences mentioned in all the FIRs are similar, namely offences under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC. In three of the FIRs, namely FIR No.253/2009 registered at Police Station Karni Vihar, Jaipur, FIR No.278/2009 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jaiupr, and FIR No.617/2009 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur, the police has submitted Negative Final Report in favour of the petitioner. But in the remaining fourteen FIRs the investigation is continuing. The FIRs are as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_449_TLRAJ0_2010Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) The police is investigating these cases under their jurisdiction. Further it is the case of the petitioner that vide notification dated 02nd August, 2005, the Government of Rajasthan had constituted a special force known as CID (SOG). The said force was constituted in order to investigate the case of large scale economic frauds. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. G.S. Sisodia, since the allegation against the present petitioner involves large scale economic frauds spread over different districts of Rajasthan, the FIRs, mentioned above, should in fact have been handed-over to the CID (SOG) for investigation. According to the petitioner, although he had sent a representation on 25.05.2010 for referring all the FIRs for investigation by the CID (SOG), the respondents have not taken any action on the said representation. Moreover, in another set of cases involving sale of fire arms, vide order dated 05.11.2009, the Government had directed the Inspector General of Police to send a large number of FIRs for investigation to the Anti Corruption Bureau. Furthermore, in the case of L.C. Ojha Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Cri. Misc. Petition No.1064/2010, decided on 10.06.2010), this Court had also directed that the large number of FIRs be investigated by a single investigating agency. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the petitioner is willing to repay the money which is allegedly involved in the present set of FIRs. Hence, the limited prayer that the fourteen FIRs, mentioned above, should be handed-over to the CID (SOG) for investigation.