Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramchandra vs State on 20 March, 2020
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1845/2019
1. Ramchandra S/o Rupa Ram, Aged About 44 Years, Village
Kamasar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu
2. Rukmanand S/o Hadmana Ram, Aged About 57 Years,
Village Ajitsar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu
3. Sahi Ram S/o Govind Ram, Aged About 50 Years, Village
Armalsar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State, Through PP
2. Mani Ram S/o Magha Ram, Ward No.19, Sardarshahar,
District Churu
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. Rajendra Prasad
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anees Bhurat, PP
Mr. R.S. Choudhary for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment Date of Pronouncement :- 20/03/2020 Judgment Reserved on :- 25/02/2020
1. The instant criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners herein for assailing the order dated 16.03.2019 passed by learned Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sardarshahar District Churu in connection with FR No.109/2018 submitted by the police after investigation of the FIR No.339/2017 for offences under Sections 384, 385, 389, 420, (Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:13:51 PM) (2 of 6) [CRLMP-1845/2019] 406, 506 and 120B IPC. The learned Magistrate directed that the matter shall be reopened and investigated further.
2. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal misc. petition are noted hereinbelow:-
The FIR aforementioned came to be lodged in the year 2017. The matter was allegedly investigated thrice by the Rajasthan police as well as by CID (CB). The final round of investigation was undertaken by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, CID (CB) Range Bikaner who concluded that the case was cooked up and accordingly, a negative final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court of learned ACJM, Sardarshahar on 31.08.2018. The complainant Maniram appeared before the trial court and sought opportunity to file a protest petition which came to be submitted in the court on 11.12.2018. In the meantime, an application was filed by the Addl SP, CID (CB) Range Bikaner in the trial court requesting permission to reopen the final report and to conduct further investigation. The learned Magistrate, accepted the application by order dated 16.03.2019 and returned the case dairy to the IO for further investigation. The said order is assailed by the accused-petitioners through this misc. petition preferred under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
3. Shri G.R. Punia, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rajendra Prasad, Advocate, relied upon a circular dated 06.01.2019 issued by the Home Department, Government of Rajasthan whereby it has been stipulated that not more than three (Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:13:51 PM) (3 of 6) [CRLMP-1845/2019] investigations shall be permitted in a matter. He urged that the impugned order amounts to gross abuse of process of law as the same has been passed without application of mind to the facts available on record and thus, the same deserves to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri R.S. Choudhary, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions of the petitioner's counsel. They urged that investigation of a case involving cognizable offence is the absolute prerogative of the Investigating Officer. As per them, the Investigating Officer has assigned detailed reasons in the application for further investigation and therefore, the learned Magistrate was absolutely justified in returning the file to the IO and permitting him to proceed with further investigation. As per them, the IO even need not ask for permission to further investigate the matter as such course of action is within the exclusive domain of the investigating agency. In support of this contention, learned counsel Shri R.S. Choudhary appearing for the complainant relied upon the judgment in the case of Bikash Rajan Rout vs State through the Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi reported in AIR 2019 SC 2002. On these grounds, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant, sought dismissal of the misc. petition.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.
(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:13:51 PM)
(4 of 6) [CRLMP-1845/2019]
6. As per the negative final report which has been placed on record, repeated investigations have been undertaken. Shri Omprakash Godara, the SHO concerned initiated the investigation and recorded statements of few witnesses whereafter the file was transferred to Police Inspector Ruparam who recorded the statements of numerous witnesses and found the offences proved against the accused.
7. Thereafter, by the order of the Addl. Director General of Police, CID (CB), Rajasthan Jaipur the file was transferred for investigation to Shri Nisar Khan, Inspector Police, CID (CB), Jaipur who conducted investigation from numerous witnesses and collected few documents. Thereafter again by the order of Addl. Director General of Police, CID (CB), the file was transferred to Satyendra Pal Singh, Addl. SP, CID (CB), Range Bikaner who again recorded the statements of various witnesses, collected the documents and came to a conclusion that the offences were not found proved against the accused. With this conclusion, the negative final report came to be submitted in the court concerned. After the negative final report had been submitted, the application as aforesaid came to be filed by the Addl. SP CID (CB) Range Bikaner in which the IO has formulated certain points of determination which require further investigation.
8. Considered in light of the facts noted above, it is clear that as per the narration made in the negative final report placed on record, two different IOs did not reach any conclusion after (Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:13:51 PM) (5 of 6) [CRLMP-1845/2019] conducting investigation and one Investigating Officer simply recorded the statements of the witnesses. Hence, it cannot be said that there have been three rounds of conclusive investigation which can prohibit/restrict a fresh/further investigation by virtue of the circular dated 06.01.2019 issued by the State Government. In the application for further investigation, the IO has pin-pointed certain points which require fresh and thorough investigation. The points of determination which are narrated in the application are unquestionably relevant and therefore, it cannot be said that the application is non-speaking or unreasoned. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya vs State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in AIR 2019 SC 5233 has categorically laid down that as per Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., the police is empowered to continue investigation even after filing of the police report until commencement of trial and that the Magistrate has wide powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. including ordering of further investigation after receipt of a report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. In the present case, the court has not given any direction for further investigation but the IO has sought return of the file acting on his own prerogative. The accused cannot claim to be prejudiced by this prayer of the IO because they would have a right to participate in the further investigation and offer their explanation to the IO if they so desire.
9. Viewed in light of the aforesaid proposition of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, I feel that there is no impediment for the IO to conduct further investigation in the matter moreso when pertinent (Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:13:51 PM) (6 of 6) [CRLMP-1845/2019] points of investigation have been formulated and enumerated in the application preferred before the Magistrate. Therefore, I am of the firm opinion that the order dated 16.03.2019 whereby the file was returned to the IO cannot be said to be illegal, perverse or amounting to gross abuse of process of law so as to warrant interference therein while exercising this Court's inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC. Accordingly, I find no merit in the misc. petition which is rejected as such.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J Sudhir Asopa/-
(Downloaded on 20/03/2020 at 10:13:51 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)