Allahabad High Court
Zohra @ Zohra Begam vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 15 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:87590
Court No. - 90
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 16067 of 2024
Applicant :- Zohra @ Zohra Begam
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.S.G.I.,G.A.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Kumar, learned A.G.A. on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 and Mrs. Ritu, learned counsel for the Union of India appearing on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated 21.09.2023 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura arising out of Case Crime No. 284 of 2023 under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, Police Station-Jait, District-Mathura and to direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Mathura and Station House Officer, Police Station-Jait, District-Mathura to take appropriate action for further investigation of the matter arising out of Case Crime No. 284 of 2023 under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, Police Station-Jait, District-Mathura and to submit the report under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.c. before the Magistrate concern within stipulated period fix by this Court.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant originally belongs to Myanmar and is a refugee under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee vide UNHCR No. 305-13C01183 and has no relatives in India, has no Aadhar Card, no Voter ID Card, no Passport except UNHCR Card (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Card). It has been asserted that the applicant possesses UNHCR Card (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugee) Card, therefore, she is not an illegal immigrant and has been falsely implicated under the Foreigners Act. The Investigating Officer ignoring the said fact and without collecting the evidence regarding the status of the applicant, submitted the charge sheet and the learned court below has taken the cognizance mechanically without application of mind in a routine manner.
Per contra, learned counsel for the opposite parties, learned A.G.A. for the State and UOI have vehemently opposed the aforesaid submission.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the opposite parties and considering the prayer made by the applicant, it transpires that in the instant matter investigation has been concluded and the charge sheet has been submitted before the Court concerned. The learned Court below has taken cognizance and issued the summoning order dated 21.09.2023, therefore, there is no occasion to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. at the behest of the accused.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State through Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Hemendhra Reddy and Another (2023) SCC Online SC 515 has held that "there is nothing in Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear the accused while considering the application for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C." Even in Romila Thapar and others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2018 SC 4683 the Apex Court has held that "accused cannot ask for changing the Investigating Agency or to do investigation in a particular manner including Court Monitored Investigation."
Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as in the light of the judgments cited above; the prayer for further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. is declined. Accordingly, the application u/s 482 is dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.5.2024
Shivani
