JUDGMENT :

1. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed praying for quashing of the supplementary charge-sheet dated 28.8.2016 and summoning order dated 28.9.2016 in Case Crime No. 203 of 2014, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Juhi and District Kanpur Nagar alongwith entire proceedings of the case.

2. An FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 on 02.6.2014 before police station alleging that she is living in U.S.A. for last 11 years. The applicant, Ajit Kumar Gupta and co-accused, Narendra Kumar Singh and Kanhaiya Gupta, have occupied her house situated in Anandpuri, Transport Nagar, Kanpur, with the help of gangsters. It was further alleged that accused persons have fabricated documents to justify their illegal occupation. Her mother never signed any document in their favour and her signatures have been digitally created. The aforesaid FIR was registered after a letter was sent to the Chief Minister of the State by the opposite party no.2 from United State of America.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that after investigation charge-sheet no. 38/16 dated 27.5.2016 was submitted by the police only against co-accused, Narendra Kumar Singh and the applicant was exonerated. At the behest of co-accused, further investigation was conducted by the police and supplementary charge-sheet No. 38-A/16 dated 28.8.2016 was filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No.2/Additional Judge, Kanpur Nagar, who took cognizance of the same on 28.9.2016 and summoned the applicant. In the disputed house, co-accused, Narendra Kumar Singh, is in possession on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 31.5.2004 executed by mother of opposite party no.2. The name of the applicant is mentioned in the agreement in block letters without any signature, purportedly as a witness of the agreement. Civil dispute is pending between the mother of the opposite party no.2 and co-accused, Narendra Kumar Singh. In the supplementary charge-sheet, the applicant has been charge-sheeted solely on the basis of the statement of co-accused, Narendra Kumar Singh and supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against him. The court below has summoned the applicant on its basis.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even if it is assumed that the applicant signed the disputed agreement to sell as a witness, even then it is unregistered document written on stamp of Rs.100/- and no title of the property has passed on its basis in favour of the applicant or any of the co-accused. The applicant claims that he has no criminal history.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that further investigation in the case was done without any order of Magistrate and supplementary charge-sheet was illegally submitted against the applicant. He has pointed out to the order dated 12.1.2023 passed by this Court wherein a report was called from the Magistrate concerned as to whether any direction for further investigation was given by the court or not. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, has sent report dated 15.4.2023 informing that there is no order found on the record of the case directing further investigation in this case by the Investigating Officer.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that filing of supplementary charge-sheet against the applicant on the basis of unauthorized further investigation is bad in law. In the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali and others, (2013) 5 SCC 762 such a course adopted has been deprecated and it has been held by Apex Court that :

“40. Having analysed the provisions of the Code and the various judgments as afore-indicated, we would state the following conclusions in regard to the powers of a magistrate in terms of Section 173(2) read with Section 173(8) and Section 156(3) of the Code :

40.1. The Magistrate has no power to direct ‘reinvestigation’ or ‘fresh investigation’ (de novo) in the case initiated on the basis of a police report.

40.2. A Mag