Ashfaque Ahmed vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 May, 2011
36. Mr. Pradhan submits that in the above facts of the case,
it is patent that the entire act of police of registration of a
fresh case after conducting further investigation permissible
under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is void ab initio. The registration
of fresh case is therefore, required to be abhorred and
directions are in order to the trial court to treat chargesheet in
C.R. No. 198 of 2001 as supplementary chargesheet in C.R. No.
46 of 1993. He submits that inherent powers of this court
under section 482 Cr.P.C. are wide enough to include such
directions which would secure the ends of justice. He seeks
precedent in a decision of Calcutta High Court in Rajat Ali
Vs. State of W.B. and anr. reported in 2010 Cr.L.J. page
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:14:46 :::
* 49 * Revn.Appln.94.06
a/w.Revn.Appln.408.2005
2984. In the facts of the decision cited a complaint under
section 498-A/302/34 IPC had been registered against 10
persons. On completion of investigation the investigating
agency submitted chargesheet against nine accused persons
with a prayer for discharge of the 10th accused. The
complainant raised an objection to the prayer for discharge
followed by a prayer of further investigation. The learned
Magistrate upheld the objection and directed "re-investigation"