1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT Sh. Roshan Lal V/s. Sate of Raj. & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15386/09 S.B. Civil Writ Petition Under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Date of Judgment :: 22.02.2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr. Bipin Gupta for the petitioner. The petitioner has made the following prayers before this Court :- (a) Respondents may kindly be directed to register an FIR in regard to misplacement of the 121 original vouchers/documents and investigation be made and 121 original vouches/documents may be recovered. (b) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may pass in favour of the petitioner. (c) That cost of the writ petition may kindly be quantified in favour of the petitioner. 2 In a nutshell, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had worked as a Junior Assistant (Accounts) in the Rajasthan Housing Board from 26.04.1980 to 17.08.2002. However, as one Mr. K.K. Sharma lodged a complaint against the petitioner with regard to misappropriation of money, the petitioner was suspended on 17.08.2002. The said allegation was made on the basis of special audit report. On the basis of the said report, a FIR was registered against the petitioner by the Anti-Corruption Bureau. It is further the case of the petitioner that although an allegation of embezzlement has been levelled against him, but the original vouchers and records are no longer available. Thus, it is imperative that the misplaced documents should be inquired into. According to him, these vouchers and documents have been removed not by him, but by his superior offices in order to protect their own skins. Hence, the petitioner prays that this Court should direct the respondents, the Anti-Corruption Bureau to register a FIR against the superior officers. This writ petition is misconceived. In case the petitioner has any grievance and in case he is under a bona fide impression that others have committed an offence, the petitioner is certainly free to set the criminal law into motion by lodging a FIR himself or by sending his allegations to the concerned Superintendent of Police. After all, every person is free to lodge a FIR in case a cognizable offence has been 3 committed by known or unknown person. If the investigation agency refuses to register FIR, then the petitioner would be free under the provisions of Cr.P.C., to bring it to the notice of the concerned Superintendent of Police. Since efficacious alternative remedy does exist, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked. Therefore, this writ petition is, hereby, dismissed. [R.S.CHAUHAN]J A.Asopa/