Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This criminal misc. petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceedings pending before the learned Special Judge (SC/ST) Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No. 4/2010.

2. The short facts of the case are that a dead body was found on the railway track near village and inquest report has been prepared under Section 174, Cr.P.C. The complaint was filed for the offences under Section 302, 201/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the present petitioners which was sent for investigation. After investigation, the police submitted a negative report before the learned Magistrate on 1.8.2007. The notices were issued to the complainant and protest petition has been filed by the complainant. The learned Magistrate has recorded evidence of the complainant under Section 200, Cr.P.C. He has also recorded statements of other witnesses under Section 202, Cr.P.C. and after completion of enquiry, matter was pending for hearing arguments regarding taking of the cognizance. When the matter was fixed for hearing arguments, an application was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pali stating therein that the matter was entrusted to the C.I.D. (CB) for investigation and hence the negative report should be returned to him. The learned Magistrate has returned the negative report and after that charge-sheet has been filed against the present petitioners. Cognizance has been taken and charges have been framed against the present petitioners.

3. The present petitioners moved an application that the committal order is perverse and prayed that the present petitioners should be discharged but that application has been rejected by the trial court. Hence this petition has been filed.

4. The first contention of the present petitioners is that once a report under Section 173(2) has been filed before the competent court then no fresh investigation can be carried out by the investigating officer and he has referred to provisions of Section 173(8), which reads as follows:-

`Section 178(8) - Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)."

5. A bare perusal of above provision goes to show that after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, there is no bar on the investigating officer to further investigation the matter. There is no dispute about the above legal proposition, but the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that fresh investigation could not be ordered, but in the present case, the learned trial Court vide its order dated 3.7.2009 has not ordered for any further investigation but on the contrary, Ex. 1 the application which was presented before the Magistrate by Deputy Superintendent of Police on 30.3.2009 goes to show that the CID (CB) was already investigating the matter since 10.8.2007 and hence the trial Magistrate has not ordered any investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment reported in the case of Ramchandra vs. R. Udhayakumar and others (2008) 5 SCC 413) wherein it has been held as under:-

"Instead of fresh investigation there can be further investigation if required under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The same can be done by CB CID as directed by the High Court. From a plain reading of Section 173 Cr.P.C. it is evident that even after completion of investigation under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., the police has right to further investigate under sub-secti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document