Saiyda vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5621 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 44
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17914 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Saiyda
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi,Akash Tyagi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 07.12.2021 in Sessions Trial No. 574 of 2020 (1126/20) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut arising out of Case Crime No. 126/2020 under sections 147, 148, 149, 352, 307, 302 I.P.C. read with Section 34 of I.P.C., Police Station Mundali, District Meerut.

This petition is by the accused/applicant challenging the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Meerut dated 07.12.2021 whereby the application moved by the accused-applicant for directing further investigation under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. has been rejected relying upon the judgment of of this Court in Kedarnath Verma vs. State of U.P., Criminal Revision No. 27/11 dated 20.07.2021 in which it is held that at the instance of accused, no direction can be issued to conduct further investigation.

The aforesaid order is challenged primarily on the ground that there are cross cases lodged in the matter and at the instance of the informant, a direction of further investigation has already been issued by the concerned Magistrate in the other criminal case. Submission is that once further investigation is being carried out, it would be prudent exercise of discretion for the Court to direct holding of further investigation in the present case also.

Learned AGA, on the other hand, opposed the prayer made in the petition relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Kedarnath Yadav (supra) on the ground that in the event the applicant has any other material available in her defence, she can always produce it as defence evidence during the course of trial.

The law is settled that at the instance of an accused, the application for further investigation would ordinarily not be entertained. Even otherwise, such power can be exercised only by the Magistrate in view of the law laid down in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Another 2019 SCC Online SC 1346 which has also been relied upon by the Court below. The applicant is otherwise not prejudiced in any manner in as much as any evidence relevant in the controversy if is not referred at the stage of investigation and is intended to be relied upon in support of the defence by the party, the same can always be adduced as defence evidence during the trial.

In such view of the matter, this Court finds no good ground to interfere with the order impugned dated 07.12.2021.

Subject to the observations made above, this petition fails and is accordingly consigned to records.

Order Date :- 30.6.2022

Madhurima