Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

C482 No.794 of 2017

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Parth Tamta, Advocate, holding

brief of Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the

applicant.

Mr. Deepak Bisht, Deputy Advocate

General for the State of Uttarakhand.

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that respondent no.2-Smt. Chandrakanta moved a complaint before Police Station Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar against the applicant and four others for lodging an F.I.R. against them for the offences punishable under Section 354, 323, 147, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act. After investigation, the Police submitted the Final Report. In the Final Report, it is stated that there is a suit pending between the respondent no.2 and the applicant in the Court of Consolidation Officer and that the respondent no.2 have no medical evidence regarding the injuries and since both the parties belong to Scheduled Caste community, therefore, the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of S.C./S.T. Act are not applicable to the present case. The said Final Report was accepted by the Magistrate on 04.09.2013. Against the Final Report, respondent no.2 filed a Protest Petition on 23.12.2013. The same was rejected vide order dated 17.05.2014. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent no.2 preferred a Revision, which too was dismissed on 06.08.2014. Respondent no.2 did not further challenge the order and, instead surprisingly, respondent no.2 preferred a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate on the same facts, which were mentioned in the complaint, pursuant to

which F.I.R. was lodged. After recording the statement of the respondent no.2, the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the applicant vide order dated 30.05.2015. Against the order dated 30.05.2015, applicant preferred Revision. The Revision filed by the applicant was dismissed by the Revisional Court on 08.03.2017. Thus, feeling aggrieved, applicant has filed this criminal misc.

application.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, after investigation, the Investigating Officer did not find any substance in the allegations levelled against the applicant and have submitted the Final Report and respondent no.2 have filed a Protest Petition challenging the Final Report, which too was dismissed; that the Revision Petition filed by respondent no.2 has also been dismissed; that, once the proceedings are taken to the logical end, then a party is not permitted to raise the issue by agitating it in a different forum on the self same facts.

4. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “T.T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala & others”, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181, while dealing with an identical issue, has held as under:

“27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a