Allahabad High Court
Rishipal vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 22 May, 2023
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:111697
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 18800 of 2023
Applicant :- Rishipal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
1. List revised.
2. Heard Sri Onkar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.
3. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Rishipal with the following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow this application and to quash the IInd part of the impugned order dated 15.03.2023, passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar, whereby the learned Magistrate has been illegally directed the police station in charge to further investigate the matter after getting the ballistic expert report, in final report /2100019/ 2018, Rishipal Vs. Jasvir Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 403 of 2017 under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffarnagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Muzaffarnagar to summon the opposite parties no. 2 to 7 in Case Crime No. 403 of 2017 under section 147, 148, 149, 302, 201 IPC, Police Station Chhapar, District Muzaffarnagar, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar. Otherwise the applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the trial court vide judgment and order dated 15.03.2023 has opined that the distance of the injury received by the deceased can only be opined by the ballistic expert and in the matter the Investigating Officer has not taken the opinion of the ballistic expert. It is argued that as such the said finding of the trial court be set aside. It is argued that the order impugned directing further investigation with the said finding will influence the investigating agency.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and arguments by arguing that the order of the trial court is to the effect that the final report No. 18 of 2022 has been set aside, the concerned Investigating Agency has been directed to conduct further investigation, the protest has been disposed of as such and the Investigating Agency has been directed to conduct the investigation in an expeditious manner. It is submitted that there is no such direction given by the trial court to the Investigating Agency to conduct the investigation in a particular manner. It is submitted that the part of the order which has been placed for the argument on behalf of the applicant is a mere discussion by the trial court. It is submitted that as such the petition be dismissed.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that vide order dated 15.03.2023 the final report has been set aside, the matter has been directed to be investigated further and as such the protest petition has been disposed of and a direction has been issued to conduct the investigation expeditiously. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the matter and as such does not interfere in it.
7. However, it is provided that the Investigating Agency shall be free to investigate the matter further without being influenced by any observation of the trial court.
8. The application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 22.5.2023
M. ARIF
(Samit Gopal, J.)
