PREETI JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition has been filed assailing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners arises from FIR-225/2002 in which charge-sheet was filed for offence U/s 420 IPC against Rishab Jain but charge was framed U/s 420, 467, 468 & 471 IPC by the learned trial court and he is facing trial for offence referred to supra.

(2.) AS it reveals from the record that both the petitioners happen to be wife and husband and petitioner-1 is real sister of the complainant Punit Jain who are made accused in FIR-225/2002 but as it reveals from the record that charge-sheet came to be filed only against accused Rishab Jain and there is no pending investigation U/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. and as a consequence whereof, the investigation against the petitioner initiated pursuant to FIR-225/2002 stands dropped.

(3.) MR . Suresh Sahni appearing for respondent-6 complainant submits that present petition has been filed primarily to seek interference by this Court as regards FIR-44/2012 which in no manner related to FIR-225/2002 and after investigation no charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners, as such the petitioner at least cannot be said to be aggrieved by the order passed by the learned trial Judge framing charge against Rishab jain dt.05.01.2012 and as regards FIR-44/2012, if at all the petitioners are aggrieved remedy is available of filing criminal misc. petition U/s 482 Cr.P.C. He has further informed to this Court that as regards later FIR-44/2012, despite there being non-cognizable offences but still the Investigating Officer has not taken steps to nab the present petitioners, however it is still pending investigation and one of the accused Rishab Jain respondent-7 in FIR-44/2012 filed regular bail application U/s 439 Cr.P.C. and this Court granted indulgence of post-arrest bail to him on certain terms and conditions vide order dt.14.08.2012. Counsel submits that instant petition has been filed only to seek interference by this Court in the matter which is still pending investigation with the investigating agency and by this indirect method the petitioner is seeking intervention of this Court in FIR-44/2012 registered against the petitioners. This Court has heard counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record and of the considered opinion that it is nothing but frivolous petition filed seeking interference of this Court in its equitable jurisdiction U/Art.226 of the Constitution and the reasons are obvious.