The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of reinvestigation under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the need for exceptional circumstances to warrant such direction. The court emphasized the reluctance to interfere with the investigation process unless it is unfair, tainted, or mala-fide.

JUDGMENT :

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. Before dealing with the facts and arguments, which have been extended by the learned counsel for the applicant, it will be apt to observe as to the manner in which the relief has been modulated by the learned counsel for the applicant, which is extracted hereunder:

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 to provide the adequate security to the life and liberty of the petitioners.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding private respondents not to interfere in the personal life and liberty of the petitioners.

(iii) Issue or pass any other and further order or direction which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. In fact under the garb of the C482 application, an attempt, which has been made by the learned counsel for the applicant, is to direct the police authorities to reinvestigate into the matter pertaining to the set of allegations which had been leveled in the FIR No. 33 of 2022, dated 28.04.2022, as it was got registered by the complainant/respondent under sections 376 and 506 of IPC, at Police Station Jhankaiya, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3. Further the challenge has also been given by the applicant to the charge-sheet dated 18.06.2022, which has been submitted in Criminal Case No. 1042 of 2022, State of Uttarakhand vs. Deepak. As a consequence of the submission of the chargesheet dated 18.06.2022, the criminal proceedings have been put to motion resulting into the issuance of the summoning order dated 03.08.2022, by the court of Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

4. Primarily, the tenacity of the argument extended by the learned counsel for the applicant was that, prior to the submission of the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer, the investigation was, in fact, was a defective, which was being carried, resulting into a fraudulent acquisition of the present applicant in commission of the offence, which has been complained of in the FIR No. 33 of 2022, for his alleged involvement in commission of the offence under sections 376 and 506 of IPC.

5. The attempt made by the learned counsel for the applicant was to draw the attention of this Court to the contents of the FIR, where he intended to contend that this will not be a case under section 376 of IPC, for the reason being that, it was contended that the applicant had a relationship with the complainant for more than the last five years (though without there being any specific date in the FIR), but as per the FIR, it was contended that for the first time the incident had occurred on 14.05.2021, wherein, it has been stated that the under the pretext of taking labour work in the sugarcane field, the complainant was taken to the sugarcane field, and the accompanying sister Manisha, was tried to be prevented from being present at the place in question, by asking her to fetch water, and it was in these circumstances, that the offences was said to have been committed on 14.05.2021, and thereafter, it was contended that it continued to be established for a couple of other occasions.

6. The question would be as to whether there was a consensual relationship or not? and whether the submission of the charge-sheet was as a consequence of the defective investigation? which was conducted by the Investigating Officer, which could at all necessitate for issuance of the direction for the reinvestigation by exercising the inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has primarily contended that since this is a case of the malicious prosecution, and the report submitted by the Investigating Officer itself was defective, it would be a case for a direction to be issued for reinvestigation by this Court in the exercise of its powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the reason being that the reinvestigation, since not being an ambit contained under the Cr.P