Allahabad High Court
Anil Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. Thru. S.P. C.B.I. ... on 5 August, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4162 of 2021
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Verma
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. S.P. C.B.I. A.C.B. New Delhi
Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Anuuj Taandon
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant(s) as well as learned Additional Government Advocate, representing respondent no. 1-State, and gone through the record.
2. By way of this application under Section 482 CrPC the applicant(s) has/have prayed for quashing of the order dated 30.11.2018 passed in Criminal Misc. Case No. 216 of 2017, arising out of RC 12(A)/2014, under Sections 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI AC-III, District Lucknow.
3. A final report came to be filed by the CBI in the aforesaid case for the offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
4. The learned Special Judge, vide the impugned order, has rejected the final report and directed the CBI to further investigate the offence. While doing so, the learned Special Judge has also dealt with the matter on merit, in detail, and asked the CBI to investigate the offence further on the points, which have been mentioned in the impugned order dated 30.11.2018.
5. Mr. Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that there is no dispute that the learned Special Judge could have ordered for further investigation, but the learned Special Judge could not have directed the investigating agency to investigate the offence in accordance with the Court's view points. The learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2003) 2 SCC 649 (M.C. Abraham and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others) in which it has been stated that it is for the Magistrate/Judge to accept the final report or to order for further investigation, but the Magistrate/Judge cannot direct the investigating agency to submit a report in accordance with its view points.
6. This Court does not find any error in the impugned order, directing for further investigation. The CBI, however, will collect the evidence independently, without being influenced by any observation(s) made by the learned Special Judge in its impugned order and, if, on the basis of the evidence collected during the course of investigation, it is found that offence is made out, it may file supplementary report/charge-sheet and, if it is found that no case is made out, it may file a closure report again.
7. In view of above, this application is disposed of with an observation that the CBI is not required to investigate the offence, as pointed out by the learned Special Judge, but it should independently proceed with the matter and investigate the offence further in pursuance of the impugned order. The Court shall not have given direction for further investigation in the manner, as mentioned in the impugned order.
Order Date :- 5.8.2022
MVS/-
