Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 160 (PAT)

Ajit Kumar Gupta @ Ajit Prasad v. State Of Bihar

2008-01-23

ANWAR AHMAD

body2008
Judgment Anwar Ahmad, J. 1. This is an application filed under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 30th August, 2007 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagaha, in Ramnagar P S Case No. 101 of 2004 refusing to accord permission for reinvestigation of the case. 2. Informant Rajendra Pal lodged FIR under Sec. 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Upendra Pal, against seven persons. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the petitioners and investigation is proceeding against others. Investigating Officer filed a petition dated 5.12.2006 in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagaha for an order for reinvestigation. The learned Magistrate after hearing and perusing the evidence collected in the case diary rejected the petition. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order the present miscellaneous case has been filed for quashing the said order and allowing the petition of the investigating officer for reinvestigation. 3. The learned lawyer for the petitioners submits that Sec. 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down further investigation in respect of an offence after submission of final report to the Magistrate. In support of his contention he referred to a decision in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi V/s. State of Gujarat, . He submitted that when fresh facts come to light, the police should inform the court and seek permission to make further investigation and the permission is ordinarily granted. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order be quashed and the Investigating Officer be permitted for making further investigation. 4. The occurrence is said to have taken place on Ist August, 2004 and charge sheet against the petitioners was filed on 13.9.2004 keeping the investigation pending against others. The I.O. who investigated the case was changed replaced by the petitioner -Investigating Officer who after more than two years of the filing of the charge sheet filed the present petition for further investigation. In the petition, vide annexure-6, the present Investigating Officer stated that the deceased was done to death by Subhash Pal and others and the petitioners have falsely been implicated. He stated that innocent be not convicted and for that prayed for an order for reinvestigation. As such without disclosing any material, the I.O. in his petition held the petitioners accused innocent. He stated that innocent be not convicted and for that prayed for an order for reinvestigation. As such without disclosing any material, the I.O. in his petition held the petitioners accused innocent. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that a large number of witnesses have supported the case against the petitioners. 5. Considering the assertions made in the petition of the I.O. and the impugned order disclosing the overwhelming evidence against the petitioners, I am of the view that the Investigating Officer has filed the petition for reinvestigation with malafide intention. I find that the present petition for reinvestigation is against the interest of justice and such a petition is fit to be deprecated. In the result, I do not find any merit in the miscellaneous case and it is therefore dismissed.