Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Saurabh Lavania, J.
Vishal Tripathi – Applicant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others – Opposite Parties
Application U/S 482 No. - 6104 of 2024
Decided On : 09-08-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 173(8) - Further investigation - Application for re-investigation rejected by Trial Court - Court held that the accused has no right to seek further investigation after charge sheet is filed - Discrepancies in dates and times are to be considered at the trial stage. (Paras 36, 41)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Powers of Magistrate - Magistrate can order further investigation even after charge sheet submission, but the accused has no right to demand it. (Paras 36, 70)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought re-investigation of a case where FIR was lodged against multiple accused for assault. The Trial Court rejected the application stating it was not maintainable post charge sheet submission.
Findings of Court:
The Court upheld the Trial Court's decision, emphasizing the lack of right for the accused to demand further investigation at this stage.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused has the right to seek further investigation after a charge sheet has been filed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the accused has no right to demand further investigation post charge sheet submission, and discrepancies should be addressed during trial.
Result: Application dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Saurabh Lavania, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the State and Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
3. Present application has been filed by the applicant for quashing of impugned order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar (in short "Trial Court") in S.S.T. No. 66 of 2024 (State vs. Vishal Tripathi and Others), whereby the Trial Court rejected the application seeking prayer to direct the Investigating Officer (I.O.) to conduct re-investigation/further investigation in the matter and the applicant has also sought the prayer to direct for re-investigation/further investigation.
4. Facts in brief are to the effect that the FIR No. 0228 of 2023 was lodged on 24.07.2023 at 13:15 Hours under Section 147, 323, 325, 427, 452 IPC by the informant-Pramod Tiwari against Devendra Tripathi, Vishal Tripahti, Rudra Tripathi, Aradhana Tripathi and Susheela. Column No. 3 of the FIR does not indicate date of the alleged incident.
5. According to FIR, at about 10:00 PM accused-applicant assaulted the informant, son of the informant, daughter of the informant.
6. In this incident, informant Pramod Tiwari, son of the informant namely Aditya Tiwari, wife of the informant namely Sonika Tiwari, daughter of the informant namely Manya Tiwari, sustained injuries.
7. The FIR lodged on 24.07.2023 in regard to the incident says that ^^vkt jkr dks 10%00 cts izkFkhZ dks ykBh] M.Ms o Vxkjh] csypd ls izkFkhZ o izkFkhZ ds yM+ds vkfnR; frokjh ds flj esa xgjh pksVsa vk;h gS o izkFkhZ ds iq=h ekU;k frokjh ds gkFk esa ekjus ls gkFk VwV x;k gSA**
8. After lodging of FIR, the injured/informant Pramod Tiwari was medically examined at C.H.C.-Jalalpur, District-Ambedkar Nagar on 24.07.2023 at 02:10 PM and Doctor opined that all the injuries are simple in nature and can be caused by hard and blunt object except Injury No.4. The injuries sustained by Sri Pramod Tiwari are as under:-
2-Abrated contusion of size 04cm x 01.5cm tnt on 0.5cm below from injury no. 1, colour reddish.
3-Abrated contusion of size 12cm x 05.5cm tnt on posterior aspect of Lt. forearm included with Lt. elbow joint, colour reddish.
4-Tenderness with swelling tnt on Rt. hand advice x-ray (wrist joint-AP & Lat.).
5-C O P on Lt. side front of chest.
6-C O P on Rt. side front of abdomen."
9. X-ray report dated 25.07.2023 of injured Pramod Tiwari indicates following injuries:-
10. Injured Sonika Tiwari (wife of Pramod Tiwari) was medically examined on 24.07.2023 at 03:19 PM at CHC-Jalapur, District-Ambedkar Nagar and Doctor opined that all injuries are simple in nature and can be caused by hard and blunt object. Injured Sonika Tiwari sustained following injuries:-
2-Contusion of size 03.5cm x 02cm tnt on Lt. side forehead 02.5cm above from Lt. eyebrow, colour reddish blue.
3- Abrasion of size 03.5cm x 0.1cm tnt. on Rt. side of face 02cm below from Rt. lower eyelid, colour reddish.
4-Contusion of size 10cm x 08cm tnt. on lateral aspect of arm 07cm above from Rt. elbow joint, colour reddish blue.
5-Contusion of size 02cm x 01.5cm tnt. on dorsal aspect of Rt. forearm 04cm below from Rt. elbow joint, colour reddish blue.
6-Contusion of size 10cm x 04.5cm tnt. on Lt. side back of chest 05cm below from lower border of spin of Lt. scapula, colour reddish blue.
7-Contusion of size 07cm x 04cm tnt on Rt. side back of chest, 04cm medial from lower end of scapula, colour reddish blue.
8-Contusion of size 17cm x 08cm tnt on Lt. buttock just b
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 Magistrate cannot treat a case as a complaint after taking cognizance based on a charge-sheet; further investigation rights lie with the police.
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 Magistrate cannot retroactively classify a case as a complaint after taking cognizance based on an investigation report, as further investigations are solely under the police's purview without re....
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....
(1) Further investigation – Mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding trial should not stand in way of further investigation if that would help court in arriving at truth and do real an....
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 the necessity of fair investigation in criminal proceedings and clarified the powers of the Magistrate to order further investigation under specific circumstances.
Further investigation – Police ought to follow procedure of seeking permission from Court to conduct “further investigation” and file supplementary chargesheet – Power to direct further investigation....
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
