Back
ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Rashmi Sundrani – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anish Kumar Gupta, J.
Heard Sri R.P. Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate and Sri Rajeev Ratan Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Azhar Khan, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Gaurav Tiwari, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and Sri Sandeep Choudhary, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The petition under Article 227 has been filed by petitioner seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 3.8.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 145 of 2021 (Smt. Rashmi Sundrani v. State of U.P. and others) arising out of order dated 27.11.2019 and subsequent order dated 20.2.2020 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate.
3. The aforesaid application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant seeking quashing of the order dated 9.4.2019, passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 139 of 2016 (State v. Mukesh Kumar Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 369 of 2015 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Colonel Ganj, Allahabad, whereby the learned Magistrate has directed the matter to be treated as a complaint case on protest petition filed by the applicant against the final orde
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 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....
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.
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....
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....
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.
The court affirmed that magistrates cannot order further investigations post-cognizance without evidence of malafide, upholding the legitimacy of the charge sheet filed under Section 498A.
Court affirmed that Magistrate can order further investigation, but not after charges have been framed without compelling justification.
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
