Allahabad High Court
Babu Ram And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2127 of 2019
Applicant :- Babu Ram And Others
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajmal Khan,Prem Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Piyush Mishra
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the summoning order dated 28.1.2019 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar in Case No.2386 of 2018, State Vs. Babu Ram, as well as the Charge Sheet No.19-A of 2018, dated 27.4.2018 arising out of Case Crime No.03 of 2018, under Sections 147, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Malipur, District Ambedkar Nagar.
2. On a written complaint dated 16.1.2018 containing allegations that seven persons named in the FIR with a common intention armed with Lathi and Danda entered into the house of the complainant and started assaulting the family members of the complainant and giving filthiest abuses. The investigating officer after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet before the Circle Officer against Babu Ram, Chhote Lal, Amrit Lal and Dharmendra. The Circle Officer examined the charge sheet and found that the investigation was not carried out impartially and it was conducted in a perfunctory manner taking myopic view of the evidence. The Circle Officer was of the view that the investigation was not impartial and not conducted in accordance with law. The Investigating Officer did not try to collect the evidence as mandated under the law. In view thereof, the Circle Officer did not approve the charge sheet for filing the same before the court and directed the Station House Officer of the Police Station Malipur to entrust the investigation to another Investigating Officer and to get the investigation under his supervision. The new Investigating Officer after conducting the investigation, filed Charge Sheet No.19-A of 2018, which was approved by the Circle Officer and the same was filed before the court, on which the cognizance has been taken and the petitioners have been summoned to face the trial under Sections 147, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 IPC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no power vested in the police authorities/Circle Officer to order for re-investigation. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ramachandran Vs. R.Udhayakumar and others, 2008 (5) SCC 413 to submit that the police can carry out further investigation but cannot conduct de novo/fresh investigation in the offence. He, therefore, submits that filing of the fresh Charge Sheet No.19-A and taking cognizance on the said charge sheet and the summoning order are bad in law.
4. On the other hand, Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, learned AGA submits that the Circle Officer/higher authorities have all the power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to carry out fresh/de novo investigation before filing of the charge sheet in the court and taking cognizance thereon. He also submits that in the present case, the earlier charge sheet was not approved for filing the same before the court and the Circle Officer directed for re-investigation of the case by another Investigating Officer. The Circle Officer found that the earlier investigation was not carried out in accordance with law and in an impartial manner. He, therefore, submits that neither the charge sheet nor the cognizance nor the summoning order are bad in law and, therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The police is required to file the report after investigating the cognizable offence under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, before the police submits the report in the court concerned, it is always open to the investigating officer/investigating agency to carry out further investigation/re-investigation.
7. In the present case, the earlier charge sheet was not filed in the court inasmuch as it was not approved by the Circle Officer for filing the same in the court and he rejected the charge sheet, and directed for re-investigation of the offence by a new Investigating Officer. This Court does not find that there is any error of law, which was committed by the Circle Officer directing for re-investigation of the offence inasmuch as he did not find the investigation carried out by the earlier Investigating Officer impartially or in accordance with law.
8. The judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is of no relevance as in the said case High Court directed for re-investigation after the charge sheet was filed and the cognizance was taken. In the present case, charge sheet was not filed and, therefore, on facts, the case of Ramachandran (supra) is distinguishable.
9. In view thereof, this Court find that there is any error of law, which is crept in the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance on the charge sheet and summoning the petitioners to face the trial for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 325, 452, 504, 506 IPC.
10. Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners are given one week's time to surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail. In case the petitioners surrender and apply for regular bail, their bail application shall be considered in accordance with the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and others (2021) 10 SCC 733.
Order Date :- 4.7.2022
Rao/-
