Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
PANKAJ NAQVI, SANJAY KUMAR PACHORI, JJ.
Rama Shankar Mishra - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Others - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6539 of 2020
Decided On : 17-08-2021
Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 – Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 147/366 – Investigation – FIR – Quashing of cognizance order - Further investigation of Case Crime was transferred to Crime Branch both cases were independently investigated by Inspector Crime Branch who after completing investigation of both cases fairly and impartially submitted Final Reports in both cases before jurisdictional Magistrate - He further pointed out about materials collected during further investigation but fairly admitted that at time of submitting police report investigation agency has no scope to discard statements victim under Section 164 of Code –
Finding of the Court:
Magistrate's power Section of Code of Criminal Procedure is very wide for it is this judicial authority that must be satisfied that proper investigation by police takes place - Ensure that proper investigation takes place sense of a fair and just investigation by police-which such Magistrate is to supervise-Article of Constitution of India mandates that all powers necessary which may also be incidental or implied are available to Magistrate to ensure a proper investigation which without doubt would include ordering of further investigation after a report is received by him Under Section and which power would continue to in such Magistrate at all stages criminal proceedings until trial itself commences - Indeed even textually investigation referred to in Section 156 Code of Criminal Procedure would as per definition of investigation Section 2 include all proceedings for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer which would undoubtedly include proceedings by way of further investigation Under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure –
Result: Application disposed of
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Pachori, J.
1. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was initially preferred for seeking direction in the nature of mandamus to transfer of the investigation of Case Crime No. 3 of 2020, P.S. Meja, District Prayagraj to Crime Branch Criminal Investigation Department (C.B.C.I.D.) or any other independent agency to ensure a fair investigation and prayed for following principal reliefs :
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 and 3 to arrest the accused persons in the present case."
2. We, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed a detailed order on 1.10.2020. The operative part of the said order is quoted hereunder :-
(ii) The Competent Authority is directed to immediately place the I.O.s of Case Crime No. 3 & 264, both of 2020 and the Circle Officer concerned under suspension and institute disciplinary proceedings against them which shall be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. The disciplinary proceedings shall be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably within 2 months and the action taken be apprised to the court in a sealed cover on 18.12.2020.
(iii) The Disciplinary Authority shall not hesitate in invoking the provisions of Section 166-A IPC and other offence, if need be, against the erring police officials.
(iv) The victim shall be provided adequate security (24 X 7) at the expense of the State. She shall be escorted in a police vehicle to record her evidence in the Court and the witness protection scheme formulated by the Apex Court in Mahendra Chawla and Others vs. Union of India and others in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156/2016 on 5.12.2018 shall be adhered to."
3. We kept the petition pending.
4. Pursuant to our detail order dated 01.10.2020, it was reported that not only the two I.O.’s of Case Crime Nos. 3 & 264, both of 2020 but the C.O.’s concerned were suspended and disciplinary inquiries initiated in which the two I.O.’s namely Mohd. Azhar Khan and Sri Munna Lal were found guilty in discharge of their duties while Sri Navin Kumar Naik (erstwhile C.O.-Meja) was found partly guilty whereas Sri Sachidanand (erstwhile C.O-Meja) stood exonerated.
5. Sri Shiv Kumar Pal, learned Government Advocate for the State submitted that pursuant to quashing of the cognizance order by this Court on 1.10.2020, further investigation of Case Crime Nos. 3 of 2020 and 264 of 2020 was transferred to Crime Branch, both the cases were independently investigated by Inspector Vridhi Chand Gautam, Crime Branch who after completing investigation of both the cases fairly and impartially, submitted Final Reports in both the cases before the jurisdictional Magistrate. He further pointed out about materials collected during further investigation but fairly admitted that at the time of submitting the police report, the investigation agency has no scope to discard the statements of the victim under Section 164 of the Code.
6. Learned Government Advocate further argued that the jurisdictional Magistrate issued summons after taking cognizance vide order dated 22.3.2021, on the basis of materials collected during the investigation against respondents no. 5 to 7 and Abhishek Singh @ Shani under Sections 363 and 376D of the IPC after rejecting the Final Report in Case Crime No. 3 of 2020. It is furt
Point of law: Magistrate's power Under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is very wide, for it is this judicial authority that must be satisfied that a proper investigation by the polic....
The court emphasized the necessity of fair investigation in criminal proceedings and clarified the powers of the Magistrate to order further investigation under specific circumstances.
A Magistrate cannot order further investigation after charges are framed; this power exists only at the pre-cognizance stage to ensure a fair investigation.
The court emphasized that further investigation must be justified by new evidence or deficiencies in the prior investigation, and the discretion to order it lies with the Magistrate based on case fac....
The investigation agency has the statutory right to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without seeking permission from the Magistrate.
Further investigation – Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within discretion of Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on facts of each case and in accordance with....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
