Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3206 (ALL)

Purushottam Agarwal v. State of U. P. And Another

2010-10-19

RAVINDRA SINGH

body2010
Ravindra Singh, J.:- Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record. 2. This application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 8.6.2010 passed by the learned C.J.M., Gautambudh Nagar in Criminal Case No. 5256 of 2006, under Sections 420, 504 and 506 IPC whereby the learned Magistrate concerned has proceeded further to frame the charge against the applicant. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the F.I.R. was lodged in case crime no. 210 of 2006 at P.S. Sector-20, Noida, district-Gautam Budh Nagar in which the charge sheet has been submitted on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicant to face the trial for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 IPC. Thereafter, at the instance of the accused persons the order of further investigation has been passed by the government. The I.O. of the another agency has moved application in the Court of learned Magistrate concerned for obtaining the case diary, the same was allowed. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate concerned has summoned the report with regard to the progress of the further investigation, but the same has not been submitted. The police report of the further investigation has not been submitted till today in the Court concerned, then the learned Magistrate concerned without waiting the same, the order for framing of the charge has been passed. In case the report of the further investigation is not submitted. The applicant shall suffer irreparable loss by not putting his defence property. The learned Magistrate concerned has passed the illegal order dated 8.6.2010, the same may be quashed. 4. In reply of above submission, the learned A.G.A. has submitted that the learned Magistrate concerned has not committed any error in passing the impugned order because the learned Magistrate concerned has already taken the cognizance on the chargesheet has been submitted by the I.O. In the present case, the police report with regard to the further investigation has not been submitted. Despite the report called for by the learned Magistrate concerned from the I.O. concerned vide order dated 15.10.2009. There is no illegality in the impugned order. The prayer for quashing the same may be refused. 5. Despite the report called for by the learned Magistrate concerned from the I.O. concerned vide order dated 15.10.2009. There is no illegality in the impugned order. The prayer for quashing the same may be refused. 5. Considering the fact, circumstances of the case, submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record, it appears that in the present case, the learned Magistrate concerned has already taken the cognizance on the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. Thereafter, the I.G. Meerut Zone, Meerut has passed the order for doing the further investigation. The I.O. of S.I.S. moved an application dated 9.6.2006 in the Court of learned C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar for obtaining the copy of the chargesheet and case diary submitted by the earlier I.O. on which the cognizance has been taken. The learned Magistrate concerned passed the order on 9.6.2010 to provide the copy of the case diary to the subsequent I.O., but the subsequent I.O. has not submitted the police report. After completing the further investigation the learned Magistrate concerned has called for the report from the I.O. about the further investigation even then the I.O. has not submitted the report of the further investigation then the learned C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar passed the order dated 15.10.2008 for framing of the charge. The application was moved on behalf of applicant in the Court of learned C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar for summoning the case diary of the further investigation, the same was rejected by learned C.J.M., Gautam Budh Nagar on 8.6.2010 by observing that it may be summoned only after further investigation and the accused persons were directed to appear before the court concerned for the parties of framing of the charge. The learned C.J.M. concerned has not committed any error in passing the order dated 8.6.2010. The impugned order is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity because it was not business of the Court to summon the case diary of the further investigation from the I.O. concerned. If the further investigation was pending, the impugned order dated 8.6.2010 is not suffering from any illegality or irregularities. The prayer for quashing the same is refused. 6. The impugned order is not suffering from any illegality or irregularity because it was not business of the Court to summon the case diary of the further investigation from the I.O. concerned. If the further investigation was pending, the impugned order dated 8.6.2010 is not suffering from any illegality or irregularities. The prayer for quashing the same is refused. 6. However, considering, the fact that in the present case, the learned C.J.M. concerned has provided the copy of the case diary to subsequent I.O. for the purpose of the further investigation, the learned C.J.M. concerned has called for the report of the further investigation also. In such circumstance, it is directed that the learned C.J.M. concerned shall wait for the submission of the report of the further investigation for a period of two months, in case such a court is not submitted within the aforesaid period. The learned C.J.M. concerned shall proceed further in the present case, in accordance with law. Accordingly, this application is disposed of.