Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 260 (ALL)

RAM MILAN SINGH v. STATE OF U P

2001-03-16

S.K.AGARWAL

body2001
S. K. AGARWAL, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The submission raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant before the Court is that if the cross version is regarding different manner of assault alone, no cross report can be registered. It is open for the Investigation Officer to receive the conversation of the case in the course of investigation of the case already registered by one party and to investigate the other version also along with it. 3. A decision passed in the case Ram Mohan Garg v. State of UP. and others, by Division Bench of this Court reported in 1990 A. C. C. 438, was brought to my notice in support of this submission. With due respect to the decision of the Division, Bench I am not convinced. I am prepared to go to the extent that this case is distin guishable from the facts at hand. If such a bar is created on the registration of the cross version, we are going to obviate the provision of Section 154 Cr. P. C. and Sec tion 156 (1) Cr. P. C. The power to inves tigate any case flows from registration of a cognizable offence alone. Without registra tion of the cognizable offence the exercise of collection of evidence is not to obtain the necessary sanction of law. It shall be only an enquiry in nature. The police so doing shall not be invested with the competence to file a charge sheet or final report under Sections 173 or 169, Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus registration of cognizable offence is a must whether it is in the form of first version or cross version. Any statement given to Investigation Officer by an accused is not admissible in evidence. It is expressly barred Section 161 Cr. P. C It can only be used to contradict its maker by the accused or prosecution. This section can not be used for any other purpose. Use of it in any man ner other than the one presented by law is not permitted. It shall amount to granting the police a licence to toy with such ver sion at will to the detriment of any ac cused. 4. In the result I do not find any merit in this application and it is accordingly rejected. 5. Use of it in any man ner other than the one presented by law is not permitted. It shall amount to granting the police a licence to toy with such ver sion at will to the detriment of any ac cused. 4. In the result I do not find any merit in this application and it is accordingly rejected. 5. However, if the applicant who is accused in the cross version and his FIR is also being investigated by the same police appears before the Court or brought in custody before the Court his bail applica tion shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible by the Court concerned. Application rejected. .