Court No. - 68

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 40837 of 2022

Applicant :- Vikas Narula

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Agarwal

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajeev Kumar Srivastava

Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and

perused the record.Mr R. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party

no. 2 is present.

By means of this application, applicant has prayed for quashing of the order

dated 12.07.2022 whereby the court below accepted the protest petition

filed by the informant against the final report and rejected the final report and

also directed the police for further investigation into the matter.

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the court below has

illegally ignored the material so collected by the Investigating officer and

illegally directed for further investigation.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that the impugned order

passed by the learned Magistrate directing further investigation on the protest

petition filed by the complainant is absolutely just and legal and is in

accordance with law and no interference is called for by this Court. He further

submits that in the present case, after submission of the final report on the

protest petition of the complainant, the courses available to the learned

Magistrate on receiving the protest petition has been very well laid down by

this Court in the case of Pakhando and others versus State of U.P. and another

reported in 2001 (43) ACC 1096. The same reads as follows:-

"1. He may agreeing with the conclusion arrived at by the police, accept the

report and drop the proceedings. But before doing so, he shall give an

opportunity of hearing to the complainant; or 2. He may take cognizance

under Section 190 (1) (b) and issue process straight way to the accused

without being bound by the conclusions of the investigating agency, where he

is satisfied that upon the facts discovered or unearthed by the police, there is

sufficient ground to proceed; or 3. He may order further investigation, if he is

satisfied that the investigation was made in a perfunctory manner;or 4. He

may, without issuing process or dropping the proceedings decide to take

cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) upon the original complaint or protest

petition treating the same as complaint and proceed to act under Sections 200

and 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter decide whether complaint should be dismissed

or process should be issued."

Perusal of the record discloses that on the submission of final report by the

police, the complainant opposite party no. 2 had filed a protest petition

whereby he has stated that the Investigating Officer, who had submitted the

final report did not investigate the matter in right perspective and had filed the

final report in the matter. The learned Magistrate after considering the

material available on record was of the opinion that the matter requires further

investigation, hence he directed the Investigating Officer to further

investigation the matter in view of Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. by adopting one

course which was available to the Magistrate after receiving the protest

petition for rejecting the final report and in view of the decision of this Court

in the case of Pakhando (Supra), the learned Magistrate was right in directing

for further investigation.

In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by

learned Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or irregularity

which may call for any interference by this Court. The application lacks merit

and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 9.2.2023

RavindraKSingh

Digitally signed by :-

RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad