Allahabad High Court
Smt. Preety Verma vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 17 August, 2023
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, Vinod Diwakar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:165150-DB
Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11257 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Preety Verma
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Babu Lal Ram,Reeta Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
1. Heard Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State respondents.
2. Vide order dated 28.7.2023 learned A.G.A. was directed time to seek further instructions in the matter.
3. Today learned A.G.A. has produced photocopy of the instructions.
4. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"(a) Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Cirtiorari quashing the Order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the respondent no. 4.
(b) Issue a Writ, Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the the respondent No. 2, 3 and 4 not to make further investigation of Case Crime No. 131 of 2022 Under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act Police Station Chakeri District Kanpur Nagar in pursuance of the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the respondent No. 3."
5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a charge-sheet dated 16.3.2023 has already been submitted in the present case and cognizance whereof has also been taken by the court below on 1.4.2023 and it is thereafter the order impugned herein for further investigation has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar (Purvi) on 12.4.2023, which could not have been passed and the same is without jurisdiction.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has produced before this Court a photocopy of the order dated 14.4.2023 passed on the basis of the order impugned herein dated 12.4.2023, whereby the Additional Commissioner of Police, Chakeri has directed the Chauki Incharge that the case diary has already been submitted before the court below, therefore, after obtaining the same further investigation be done. It is next submitted that in pursuance of the aforesaid order an application dated 1.5.2023 was filed by the Investigating Officer in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar on which permission was granted by the court below on 1.5.2023. It is next submitted that the powers of the police authorities to investigate further under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. are not restricted and can be exercised even after filing of the charge-sheet.
7. We have considered the submissions and have perused the record.
8. There can be no dispute about the fact that the powers for further investigation are available with the police authority after taking permission from the court. A reference may be made to a latest judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Peethambaran vs. State of Kerala and another 2023 SCC Online SC 553, wherein earlier judgments on the issue have also been considered.
9. We find that in a recent judgment Hon'ble Apex Court has considered this issue in the case of State through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Hemendra Reddy and another 2023 SCC Online SC 515. Paragraph 83 whereof is quoted as under:-
"83. We may summarise our final conclusion as under:
(i) Even after the final report is laid before the Magistrate and is accepted, it is permissible for the investigating agency to carry out further investigation in the case. In other words, there is no bar against conducting further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC after the final report submitted under Section 173(2) of the CrPC has been accepted.
(ii) Prior to carrying out further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC it is not necessary that the order accepting the final report should be reviewed, recalled or quashed.
(iv) Further investigation is merely a continuation of the earlier investigation, hence it cannot be said that the accused are being subjected to investigation twice over. Moreover, investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment so as to fall within the ambit of Clause (2) of Article 20 of the Constitution. The principle of double jeopardy would, therefore, not be applicable to further investigation.
(v) There is nothing in the CrPC to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC."
10. In such view of the matter, we find that the present is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.8.2023
Lalit Shukla
