IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Vivek Kumar Birla, Rajendra Kumar-IV, JJ.
Preeti Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11652 of 2023
Decided On : 03-08-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226, 20 and 21 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 167, 166, 218, 419, 420, 418, 466, 468, 474, 471, 504, 506 and 120-B - Cheating and dishonesty – Criminal Intimidation - Crime Branch she was implicated as an accused it is not in dispute that status of petitioner is that of an accused in aforesaid case and she had come forward to challenge aforesaid first information report by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition which after arguments got dismissed as withdrawn vide order with observation that no liberty to file fresh for same cause of action is being granted – Held, Investigation accused has no right to be heard and she cannot come forward to claim fair investigation only on ground that according to her the matter has wrongly been handed over to Crime Branch and simply for reason that initially petitioner was informant and subsequently she had been arrayed as accused in first information report in question - petitioner had come forward to challenge the first information report as an accused, which, after arguments was got dismissed as withdrawn – Petition is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
(vi) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Superintendent of Police Jaunpur to withdraw the investigation from the Crime Branch in regard to the Crime referred to above so that investigation of the Crime may not be diluted in any manner and real culprits may be booked who are accountable for the commission of the Crime, in the better interest of justice."
3. Initially, the FIR in question was filed by the petitioner herself, however, during investigation by the Crime Branch she was implicated as an accused, therefore, at present it is not in dispute that the status of petitioner is that of an accused in the aforesaid case and she had come forward to challenge the aforesaid first information report by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10367 of 2023 (Preeti Singh vs. State of U.P. and others), which after arguments got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 6.7.2023, however, with the observation that no liberty to file fresh for the same cause of action is being granted. The aforesaid order dated 6.7.2023 is quoted as under:-
2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 22.02.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 43 of 2022, under Sections 167, 166, 218, 419, 420, 418, 466, 468, 474, 471, 504, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Badlapur, District Jaunpur and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.
3. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition.
4. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. It is made clear that no liberty to file fresh for the same cause of action is being given."
4. This clearly proves that the status of the petitioner at present is that of an accused.
5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a lady, who is fighting with the anti-social elements and infact she had filed the first information report and therefore, her arrest will affect the investigation of the crime and real guilty person will go scot free. The accused nominated in the first information report are very influential person and therefore, they are avoiding the fair investigation of the crime and have managed to get the same transferred to Crime Branch with ulterior motive and now the petitioner has been made an accused in the present case itself. Submission, therefore, is that a writ of mandamus be issued to ensure fair investigation in Case Crime No. 43 of 2022 and a mandamus be issued to the Superintendent of Police, Jaunpr to withdraw the investigation from the Crime Branch so the investigation may not be diluted in any manner and real culprits may be booked who are accountable for the commission of offence.
6. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pooja Pal vs. Union of India and others (Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2016) decided on 22.1.2016 and judgments of this Court dated 18.4.2023 passed in Criminal Misc
Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat and others
C.B.I. and another vs. Rajesh Gandhi and another 1996 (11) SCC 253
Eicher Tractors Ltd., Haryana Vs. Commissioner of Customs
Jamuna Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 1974 SC 1822
K. Chandrasekhar Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (1998) 5 SCC 223
Kailash Chandra Vs. Union of India AIR 1961 SC 1346
Kashmeri Devi Vs. Delhi Administration & Anr. AIR 1988 SC 1323
Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmendra Bafna (2009) 7 SCC 685
Mahmood Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1976 SC 69
Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010) 6 SCC 1
Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat (2009) 6 SCC 332
Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors. AIR 2000 SC 3275
R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab
Ramachandran Vs. R. Udhayakumar & Ors. (2008) 5 SCC 413
S.N. Sharma Vs. Bipen Kumar Tiwari & Ors. AIR 1970 SC 786
State of A.P. Vs. Sarma Rao & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 137
SupremeToday
The investigation must be unbiased, honest, and just, and fair investigation is a part of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The power to dire....
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 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.
The accused has no right to seek further investigation after a charge sheet is filed, and discrepancies in evidence are to be resolved at trial.
The accused has no right to seek further investigation after the charge sheet is filed, except in exceptional circumstances. The judgment emphasized the need for a fair and just investigation, while ....
The magistrate has no power to order further investigation suo motu or on the request of the complainant/informant after cognizance is taken and the accused person appears, nor does the magistrate ha....
The accused has no right to dictate the investigating agency or method of investigation, and the plea of alibi must be substantiated with cogent evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.