The court affirmed that a Magistrate cannot treat a case as a complaint after taking cognizance, emphasizing the police's right to further investigate post-charge sheet without needing court permission.

JUDGMENT :

Anish Kumar Gupta, J.

1. 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 03.08.2022 in Criminal Revision No. 145 of 2021 (Smt. Rashmi Sundrani vs. State of U.P. and Others) arising out of order dated 27.11.2019 and subsequent order dated 20.02.2020 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 09.04.2019, passed by Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 139 of 2016 (State vs. Mukesh Kumar Singh & 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 order dated 21.03.2018 submitted by the Investigation Agency.

4. Since the facts of both the matters are common as both the cases are arising out of the same F.I.R., therefore, the entire facts and circumstances are being taken from the petition under Article 227 filed by the petitioner-Smt. Rashmi Sundrani.

5. The brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. being F.I.R. No. 0369 of 2015 was lodged by the respondent no. 2 on 21.05.2015 against Mukesh Kumar Singh, Rashmi Sundrani, S.K. Sundrani and Sanjeev Trivedi, alleging therein that he was a businessman situated at Allahabad. The accused no.1, Mukesh Kumar Singh, approached him and said that he is having some connection with the Jan Jagran Samiti, which helps in the distribution and preparation of the Mid Day Meal in different schools and on persuasion of said Mukesh Kumar Singh, the informant had gone to Raipur, where an agreement dated 29.12.2012 was executed between the Jan Jagran Samiti represented through the petitioner herein and said Mukesh Kumar Singh as well as the informant, Hari Kishan. Thereupon, they further executed some Memorandum of Understanding and also opened various bank accounts and they started jointly supplying the materials after an agreement with the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad. Thereupon some dispute arose between the parties with regard to siphoning of the amounts, received from the District Basic Education Officer, Allahabad.

6. The allegations with regard to siphoning of amount is against the petitioner as well as one S.K. Sundarani and Sanjeev Trivedi. Being aggrieved, the informant Hari Kishan has lodged the F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 369 of 2015. Aggrieved by the registration of the said F.I.R., the petitioner as well as one Sudesh Kumar Sundarani approached this Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 24754 of 2015 and interim protection was granted to the petitioner as well as the said Sudesh Kumar Sundrani during the investigation of the case. Similarly, Mukesh Kumar Singh has also approached by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 25927 of 2015 and he was also granted interim protection vide order dated 28.10.2015, till the submission of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC. Subsequent thereto, after concluding the investigation the charge- sheet was filed against the petitioner as well as the said Mukesh Kumar Singh and so far as other two persons are concerned further investigation was kept pending.

7. The first charge-sheet was filed on 01.01.2016 and after filing of the charge-sheet, the cognizance was taken against the petitioner and Mukesh Kumar Singh, by the Magistrate vide order dated 28.01.2016 and after concluding the further investigation against the remaining two accused, namely S.K. Sundrani and Sanjeev D