A Magistrate has discretion to deny applications for further investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., especially when the trial has commenced, reflecting the court's authority in managing investigative requests.

JUDGMENT

Raj Beer Singh, J.

This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 7.11.2019, passed by the learned C. J. M., Maharajganj in Misc. Case No. 1411/2019, under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. pertaining to Case Crime No. 263 of 2017, P. S.-Nautanwa, district-Maharajganj, whereby application filed by the revisionist under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. seeking further investigation has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A. G. A. for the State and learned Dy. S. G. for C. B. I. and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that the impugned order is against the facts and law and thus, is liable to be set aside. Earlier the revisionist had approached this Court by filing Criminal Writ Petition No. 21939 of 2019 seeking fair investigation in Case Crime No. 363 of 2017 under Sections-302, 304 I. P C. and by order dated 26.9.2019 the Division Bench of this court has disposed of the said writ petition by observing that in view of the law laid down in case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U. P. , (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe v. Hemant , Yashwant Dhage and others 2016) 6 SCC 277, the remedy for the petitioner is to approach the concerned magistrate in respect of his grievances. Thereafter revisionist has filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. before the Court of C. J. M., Maharajganj, wherein, inter alia it was alleged that on 2.7.2017, the informant Barkat Ali has lodged first information report alleging that his son, Kayamuddin was called by some un-known persons and he was assaulted by them and thereafter he was thrown at railway track in order to show that he has committed suicide. After investigation, the police have submitted chargesheet against the revisionist and two others and thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Learned counsel further submitted that the police did not conduct the investigation properly and that no public person was made witness of the alleged recovery of weapon of offence nor the recovered weapon was sent to the F. S. L. Similarly, relevant persons were not examined during investigation. During investigation it was also revealed that deceased Kayamuddin used to talk with one girl namely, Sangeeta but the Call Detail Record (C. D. R.) of the concerned mobile phones were not obtained. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the informant has stated that deceased was murdered by co-accused Shriram Prajapati. The revisionist was made accused without proper investigation and he was charge-sheeted along with two co-accused persons. Referring to the facts of the matter, it was submitted that the police did not conduct investigation properly and thus a thorough and fair investigation is required to be conducted by the C. B. I. It was submitted that the impugned order is against law and in violation of the order dated 26.9.2019 passed by this Court and thus, liable to be set aside.

4. Learned A. G. A. has submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. After thorough investigation, the revisionist and co-accused were found involved in the incident and thus, chargsheet was submitted after collecting evidence and that now the case is pending before the concerned Sessions Court for evidence and at this stage no further investigation is required in the matter.

5. Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Dy. S. G. along with Sri Sanjay Kuamr Yadav, learned counsel for C. B. I., submitted that in view of the facts of the matter, no investigation is required by the C. B. I., particularly, at this stage when the case is already pending before the Sessions Court at the stage of evidence.

6. I have