Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 14 (RAJ)

Ramratan v. State of Raj.

2014-01-02

NISHA GUPTA

body2014
ORDER This petition under Section 482 has been filed against the order dated 15.7.2013 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Kekari, Distt. Ajmer in Cr. Case No. 6/2013 whereby the court below has passed the order for reinvestigation on particular points. 2. The brief facts of the case are that an FIR No. 401/2012 has been registered on the complaint that a forged “Naukarnama” has been executed with the forged signature of the complainant in favour of petitioner No.2. After investigation, a negative final report was filed and during investigation, the complainant has also placed a compromise deed before the Investigation Officer. The learned court below has not accepted the negative final report and on the application of the complainant ordered for reinvestigation, hence this petition. 3. The contention of the present petitioners is that “Naukarnama” is not a forged one. Complainant herself has went before the Excise Officer and granted “Naukarnama” in favour of petitioner No.2 and Investigation Officer has also took statement of Excise Inspector, Smt. Seema Seth. In respect of this a specific order has been made by the court below to call for the original “Naukarnama” and to get it examined by the expert. 4. The only contention of the present petitioners is that order for reinvestigation or fresh investigation is not within the domain of the court below. Per contra, the contention of the Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant is that the court below has not ordered for reinvestigation while considering the investigation already conducted by the Investigation Officer, he has further ordered that during investigation the original documents be called and from Forensic Science Laboratory, the impugned thumb impression of complainant Vardi Devi should be examined. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. The FIR has been lodged alleging that “Naukarnama” in favour of Gopal has been forged and it does not bear the signature of Vardi Devi. Statement of Vardi Devi and other witnesses have been recorded during investigation and statement of Excise Inspector has also been recorded but admittedly, the original “Naukarnama” has not been taken on record by the Investigation Officer and expert opinion has not been called for the impugned thumb impression, it was essential in view of the factual scenario of the matter. 7. 7. The contention of the petitioners is that reinvestigation or further investigation is not permitted and reliance has been placed on Sagarmal & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2010 (1) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 113 where it has been held that direction for reinvestigation is not within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate but at the same time, it has been made clear that court can direct further investigation to the Investigation Agency. Same principles have been enumerated in Popular Muthiah Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 7 SCC 296 wherein the Apex Court has held as under: “We have noticed hereinbefore that the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate in the matter of issuance of process or taking of cognizance depends upon existence of conditions precedent therefor. The Magistrate has jurisdiction in the event a final form is filed (i) to accept the final form; (ii) in the event a protest petition is filed to treat the same as a complaint petition and if a prima facie case is made out, to issue processes; (iii) to take cognizance of the offences against a person, although a final form has been filed by the police, in the event he comes to the opinion that sufficient materials exist in the case diary itself therefor; and (iv) to direct reinvestigation into the matter. [See Abhinandan Jha and Others v. Dinesh Mishra , AIR 1968 SC 117 , see also Minu Kumari and Anr. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., 2006 (4) SCALE 329 ]” 8. In the light of the above, it was within the jurisdiction of the Court to direct further investigation and when the FIR is mainly as regards forgery of the “Naukarnama”, it was essential for the Investigation Agency to call for the original “Naukarnama” and to get it examined by the expert evidence. Reliance has been placed on Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346 where it has been specifically explained that further investigation can be ordered by the concerned court and further means additional, more or supplement which would be in continuation of the earlier investigation. Reliance has been placed on Rama Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar, (2009) 6 SCC 346 where it has been specifically explained that further investigation can be ordered by the concerned court and further means additional, more or supplement which would be in continuation of the earlier investigation. Without wiping out the earlier investigation, court can order for further investigation and here in the present case, the court below has used the vocabulary `reinvestigation' but a composite reading of the order suggests that without wiping out the earlier investigation, the court has ordered for additional or supplement investigation as regards the original “Naukarnama” and expert opinion on the disputed, alleged, forged thumb impression. Apart from this, the contention of the present petitioners is that “Naukarnama” is not forged one. If that is the case, the order of the court below is in favour of the present petitioners with the aid of Forensic Science report, his contention could be fortified, hence there is no perversity in the order impugned and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.