Allahabad High Court
Nanke @ Dhaniram vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 8 July, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 10
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4338 of 2022
Applicant :- Nanke @ Dhaniram
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sachin Srivastava
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Sachin Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. Present petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, who is an accused in F.I.R. No. 306 of 2018 registered under sections 147, 148, 323, 326, 307, 504, 506 I.P.C., at Police Station-Ikauna, District-Shrawasti. It is after committing the case to sessions, Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2020 is pending before the Sessions court.
3. The petitioner has approached this court earlier by filing a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing No. 2109 of 2022, Nanke @ Dhaniram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Pin. Secy. Deptt. Home And Another for quashing of the criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2020. The said petition was disposed of by this court vide Judgment and order dated 27-04-2022 with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for further investigation before the concerned court and if such an application is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided expeditiously as per law.
4. After the said order dated 27-04-2022 was passed by this court in Petition No. 2109 of 2022, it appears that the petitioner filed an application under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Court for further investigation. The learned Sessions Court in its order dated 30-05-2022 observed that the charge was framed on 06-04-2022. P.W.-1 has been examined and his Examination-in-Chief has been recorded. The accused instead of cross examining the witnesses, sought adjournment which was allowed with cost of Rs.250/-. The Sessions Court found that at this stage, there was no ground to order further investigation that too on an application of the accused.
5. When this court put a specific question to learned counsel for the petitioner that as to under what provision of law, an accused can seek further investigation of an offence by the Sessions Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has no answer except to say that learned A.G.A. had raised an objection in the petition filed earlier under section 482 Cr.P.C. saying that the petitioner had liberty to file an application under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. itself.
6. Submission/objection of the learned A.G.A. is not a law. This court is not governed by the statement of the learned A.G.A.
7. This court is of the view that the accused does not have any right to seek further investigation of an offence that too after the case is committed to the court of sessions and trial is going on.
8. In view thereof, this court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 30-05-2022. The petition is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.7.2022
AKS
