Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Javitri vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 August, 2021
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 460/2021
Javitri W/o Jagmohan, M/o Narendra (Deceased), Aged
About 46 Years, Kolipada, Uchchain, Bharatur, Rajastan-
321302.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Dept.
Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police
Headquarter Lal Kothi, Jaipur.
3. Station House Officer, P.s. Ramdeora, Dist. Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanay Jain, on VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Trivedi, PP
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
11/08/2021
In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant
caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court,
for the safety of all concerned.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is the mother of the victim-Narendra. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further submits that the FR has
been submitted and which has been accepted, was without
hearing the present petitioner.
Upon being asked that why the accused has been
arrayed as a party, learned counsel for the petitioner could
not provide a satisfactory answer to the same.
(Downloaded on 12/08/2021 at 08:48:45 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLW-460/2021]
This Court after seeing the record, is of the opinion that
any interference at this stage particularly when the option of
protest petition is available, would not be appropriate.
However, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the
Investigating Officer to make prayer and application for any
further investigation. This liberty is in consonance with
Paragraph 52 of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat
High Court in H.N.Devani Essar Oil Limited Vs. Central
Bureau Of Investigation (Criminal Application No. 1442 of
2009) decided on Jul 29, 2009, relevant paragraph 52
whereof read as follows:-
"(52) To summarize:
(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) Cr.P.C. after the final report
submitted under section 173(2) has been
accepted.
(ii) Prior to carrying out further investigation under
section 173(8) Cr.P.C. it is not necessary that the
order accepting the final report should be
reviewed, recalled or quashed.
(iii). The decision of the Supreme Court setting
aside the judgment of CEGAT which formed the
basis of the final report as well as the basis of the
order of the learned Special Judge while accepting
the report, would form fresh material so as to call
for further investigation in the case.
(Downloaded on 12/08/2021 at 08:48:45 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLW-460/2021]
(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 Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, to suggest that the court is
obliged to hear the accused while considering an
application for further investigation under section
173(8) of the Act. iii. In the above view of the
matter, no infirmity can be found in the
observation made by the learned Special Judge in
clarifying that the dismissal of the application shall
not preclude the CBI from carrying out further
investigation and submit further report against the
accused in accordance with law."
In view of the above, the present misc. petition is
disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail her liberty
according to the aforesaid precedent law.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
133-Sphophaliya/Jitender/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
