Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 543 (HP)

Faiz Murtza Ali v. State of H. P.

2013-06-14

DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY

body2013
JUDGMENT Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. (oral). Challenge herein is to the order Annexures P-10, P-12 and P-14, passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala in the cancellation reports filed by the investigating agency thrice for cancellation of FIR No. 97/03, registered under Sections 420, 416, 423, 120-B, 350, 332, 362, 441, 506, 500 IPC, in Police Station, Dharamshala, District Kangra against the accused petitioner on the complaint of the 2nd respondent. 2. The grievance brought to this Court in this petition in a nut shell is that learned Magistrate below has no jurisdiction to order the reinvestigation of the case registered against the petitioner and at the most, if not otherwise satisfied from the cancellation report may order to investigate the matter further. 3. It is seen from the record that a cancellation report in this case was initially filed on 19.8.2004. The complainant was summoned and on putting appearance he has raised certain objections and also filed some documents. Learned Magistrate below on examining the same vide impugned order Annexure P-10 had issued a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala to depute some senior officer for reinvestigation of the case. The investigation seems to have been conducted accordingly and second cancellation report Annexure P-11 was filed thereafter on 4.1.2005. 4. The complainant on putting appearance has again filed some other documents and also raised objections to the cancellation report, which has led in passing the impugned order Annexure P-12 on 20.5.2005 whereby again a direction was issued to Superintendent of Police, Kangra at Dharamshala qua getting the matter re-investigated from some senior police officer. Pursuant to the order so passed the matter seems to be investigated and again nothing incriminating was found against the accused-petitioner and as such third cancellation report Annexure P-13 dated nil was filed in the court below. To that also the complainant has raised objection, which were decided on 27.3.2010 vide impugned order Annexure P-14, and arrived at a conclusion that the complainant should be given a chance to produce his witnesses so that they can be questioned by the police to find out the truth. To that also the complainant has raised objection, which were decided on 27.3.2010 vide impugned order Annexure P-14, and arrived at a conclusion that the complainant should be given a chance to produce his witnesses so that they can be questioned by the police to find out the truth. A direction was rather issued to the complainant to produce the witnesses as per the list he had produced himself in the trial court before the I.O., and it was further observed that the I.O. need not issue any notice to the witnesses for their appearance before him. It is in this backdrop, a direction was issued to the I.O. to reinvestigate the case and submit the report with further direction to the complainant to produce witnesses for such investigation. 5. True it is that word reinvestigation has been used by learned magistrate below in all the three orders referred to hereinabove. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no provision for reinvestigation of a case and that only provision under Section 173(8) is qua further investigation of the case if the megistrate deems fit so. The tone and the tenor of the impunged order anuxture P-14 is also not suggestive of the intension of the megistrate to get the case investigated and rather to get the same further investigated as it is for this reason the complainant was specifically directed to produce the witnesses himself and a direction to the investigating officer to investigate them and try to find out the truth. 6. Further investigation now stands conducted by State CID Wing of the Himachal Pradesh Police and again cancellation report stands filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala on 19.4.2011. The same was ordered to be adjourned to 5.5.2011 for office report. The cancellation report seems to have not been processed further as the record was requisitioned by this Court in the present petition. 7. True it is that no order qua reinvestigation of the case could have been passed and at the most a direction for further investigation of the case could have only been passed to the investigating officer that too if warranted in the given facts and circumstances. 7. True it is that no order qua reinvestigation of the case could have been passed and at the most a direction for further investigation of the case could have only been passed to the investigating officer that too if warranted in the given facts and circumstances. However, as noticed hereinabove, the case seems to have not been reinvestigated and rather further investigated in the light of the fresh documents produced by the complainant and objections he preferred on each and every occasion when the cancellation report came to be considered by the trial court. The fact, however, remains that during the pendency of this petition further investigation in terms of the impugned order Annexure P-14 also stands conducted and report qua cancellation of the FIR again filed in the trial court as no case against the accused-petitioner is made out. It is expected of learned trial Magistrate to consider the report so filed, in accordance with law, keeping in mind that in the cancellation report filed thrice earlier, further investigation was got conducted and no evidence connecting the accused-petitioner with the alleged offence could be collected. 8. So far as this petition is concerned, keeping in view the impugned orders Annexures P-10 and P-12 passed in the years 2004 and 2005 respectively and pursuant to the impugned order Annexure P-14, the matter stands further investigated by the State CID wing of Himachal Pradesh Police, no other and further order is required to be passed and in view of the observations made hereinabove this petition deserves dismissal. 9. Consequently there shall be a direction to the trial court to consider and dispose of the cancellation report in accordance with law and in the light of the above observations as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of the record. 10.With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.