ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for records relating to the impugned Order dated 19.03.2024 passed in Crl.MP.No.535 of 2024 in CC.No.3592 of 2022 on the file of the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, and to quash the same being illegal, arbitrary, grossly erroneous and in violation of the procedure contemplated under Section 173(8) of Cr.PC., violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the prosecution filed the Crl.MP.No.535 of 2024 in CC.No.3592 of 2022 seeking permission for conducting further investigation. On hearing either side, the trial Court allowed the said Crl.MP., vide docket order dated 19.03.2024. Aggrieved thereby, this Criminal Petition is filed by accused.

3. Heard Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Anup Koushik, learned counsel for petitioner/accused, and Sri Mahesh Rajea, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order amounts to violation of principle of law laid under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., contending that the trial Court had erred in directing the prosecution to proceed with further investigation. He contended that the matter rests under the stage of examination of witnesses, and at that stage, proceeding with investigation by the prosecution would amount to abuse of process of law. He lamented that no such direction was given when the final report was submitted under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., for the purpose of taking cognizance under Section 190(1) (b)

of Cr.P.C.

5. Learned senior counsel for petitioner had incessantly contended that even trial was commenced in the matter as against respondent No.3 herein and directing the prosecution to proceed with further investigation would amount to violation of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya Vs. State of Gujarat 1 whereunder, it was held that after commencement of trial, neither the investigating Officer, nor the Magistrate possesses any power to proceed with further investigation. He divulged that a finding was made in impugned order observing that notice was given to respondent therein who is an accused and that he has no objection thereof, but the said notice was not served upon petitioner herein who is also an accused and the same amounts to violation of Article 21 of Constitution of India. In support of the said contention, he relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India2.

1 AIR 2019 SC 5233

2 1978 1 SCC 248

6. Learned senior counsel contended that the consequential action of Police in altering the case into offence under Section 304(II) of IPC is illegal, even assuming that the entire allegations leveled against the petitioner are true, no act of petitioner would fall under any of the limbs of Section 299 of IPC, so as to attract Section 304 of IPC ; and the same amounts to violation of provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. Therefore, while asserting that since the prosecution is highly vindictive driven by political motives, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal3 the entire proceedings against the petitioner are liable to be quashed, prayed this Court to allow the criminal petition, setting aside the impugned docket order dated 19.03.2024.

7. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondents, opposed the contentions made by learned senior counsel for petitioner and contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order

3 1992 (SUPP) 1 SSC335

dated 19.03.2024. In support of his contention, a counter affidavit was filed stating that the Deputy Commissioner of Police, We