Back
2010 Supreme(All) 1646
[2010(5) ADJ 294]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.
DAUJI PRASAD @ DAYU DAYAL …Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P AND OTHERS …Respondents
(Criminal Misc. Application No. 14118 of 2010, decided on 11th May, 2010)
Counsel :
Abnish Kumar and Onkar Nath for the Petitioner; Govt. Advocate for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 482 and 173(8)—(Indian) Penal Code, 1860—Sections 420, 468, 469 and 471—Re-investigation—Submission of charge-sheet—Sustainability of—In present case Superintendent of Police directed re-investigation/fresh investigation after submission of charge-sheet instead of further investigation—Held, Superintendent of Police has no power to order re-investigation/fresh investigation after submission of charge-sheet—Impugned order unsustainable. [Paras 2 and 5]
(B) Criminal Trial—"Re-investigation"—Meaning of—It means to wipe out earlier investigation. [Para 5]
Result; Application Disposed of.
Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J.—Present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing of the order dated 18.3.2010 passed by respondent No. 2, Superintendent of Police, Gramin (West), Agra.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after investigation the Charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer in Case Crime No. 561 of 2009 under Sections 420, 468, 469 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Sainya, District Agra. He contended that from perusal of the impugned order passed by Superintendent of Police on 18.3.2010, it is clear that he directed for re-investigation though he has no power to direct for reinvestigation after the submission of Charge-sheet. Hence the aforesaid order is liable to be quashed, which cannot sustain in eye of law.
3. He relied upon judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Virendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2002(2) JIC 375 (All) and judgment of apex Court in Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar and others, 2008(3) JIC 484 (SC).
4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer on the ground that the order may not be happily worded but it appears that order has been passed only for further investigation and not for fresh or reinvestigation, hence the present petition is liable to be rejected.
5. As per the provision and the law laid down in the aforesaid Judgment, there is no dispute that under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. the power is for further investigation after submission of the charge-sheet but there is no power for fresh investigation or reinvestigation. Direction to the Investigating Officer by higher officer for reinvestigation means, to wipe out the earlier investigation. In the present case direction was issued by the Superintendent of Police to investigate the matter again independently and submit the progress report. Intention of Superintendent of Police was clear that the matter requires further investigation. It is clear that he has no power to issue direction for fresh investigation or reinvestigation and the order for reinvestigation cannot sustain in eye of law. Hence, in compliance of the order of Superintendent of Police, Investigating Officer has neither power for reinvestigation or fresh investigation, nor such order is binding, since fresh investigation or reinvestigation is not permissible after submission of Charge-sheet. However, if additional material came to notice of the Investigating Officer or higher authorities then further investigation is not barred. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, Investigating Officer is free for further investigation in view of the provisions under Sections 173(8) Cr.P.C.
With the aforesaid observation, the present application is finally disposed of.
————
