Allahabad High Court
Ram Sagar vs State Of Up Through Principle ... on 15 February, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Court No. - 74
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 24667 of 2022
Applicant :- Ram Sagar
Opposite Party :- State Of Up Through Principle Secretary Affairs (Home) And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Mayank Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Mayank Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and the learned AGA for the State.
This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad rejecting the application dated 25.05.2022 filed by Ram Sagar (Informant-brother of deceased) in Case Crime No.46/2021, under Sections 306 IPC, Police Station-Khoda, District-Ghaziabad.
Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged on 29.01.2021 after the orders passed by this Court wherein after investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 17.08.2021. On the aforesaid charge sheet, cognizance has been taken on 27.04.2022. Thereafter, the informant, who is brother of the deceased filed an application before the Court concerned on 25.05.2022 requesting for further investigation raising different grounds, one of them being bias against the Investigating Officer. The aforesaid application has been rejected by the order dated 24.06.2022 on the ground that the same is not maintainable, copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure No.4 to this application. Therefore, the present application has been filed.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the aforesaid impugned order dated 24.06.2022 has been challenged on the following grounds:-
i. that when the case is triable by the court of Sessions, the Magistrate cannot order for further investigation. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Virendra Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 2 JIC 238;
ii. that he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs. The State of Gujarat reported in (2019) 17 SCC 43 wherein the Apex Court has held that the power of the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr PC is not taken away only because cognizance has already been taken of an offence.
iii. that the order of further investigation can be passed by the Magistrate at any stage.
On the cumulative strength of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the court below has illegally rejected the application of the applicant without assigning any cogent reason, which is not justifiable in the eye of law, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
Per contra, learned AGA for the State has opposed the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant by submitting that both the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the applicant were not applicable to the facts of the present case. However, the impugned order passed by the concerned court below is not a reasoned one, therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the concerned court below to pass afresh order.
This Court feels that the party or the parties must know why and on what grounds an order has been passed against him/them. A reasoned order is considered the third pillar of natural justice and a reasoned decision is called a reasoned decision because it contains reasons of its own in its support. It maintains the right for reason as what is the reason behind any order, which is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system.
Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed rejecting the application of the applicant without mentioning any cogent reason, therefore, the same is not justifiable in the eye of law.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the concerned court below is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court concerned to decide afresh in accordance with law by means of a reasoned and speaking order, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment.
With the aforesaid directions, the present application is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 15.2.2023
Jitendra/-
