Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 599 (HP)

Parveen Kumar v. State of H. P.

2014-05-20

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
Judgment Sureshwar Thakur, J. An FIR bearing No. 12 of 2012 of 18.1.2012 was registered with police Station, Nagrota Bagwan. On conclusion of investigation, the police had filed a report under Section 173(8) of Cr. P.C, before the Court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kangra at Dharmshala, in criminal case No. 133-II/2012. The petitioner avers that during the course of investigation, it was found that tractors had been sold by the main accused Kulbhushan to one Baljeet alias Dangi as well as to Rajpal. Nonetheless instead of making them accused, the police had named them as witnesses. The petitioner continues to aver that the tractors yet remain to be located. Further more, an application, comprised in Annexure P- 1, was moved under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the learned trial Court, calling for an order for reinvestigation of the matter by the learned trial Court. The petitioner avers, that, there, is, absolute indolence on the part of the police investigating the case, as also, lack of will on its part to locate the stolen tractors. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court, direct, that the investigation into the case be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The respondents filed a detailed reply, to, the writ petition, wherein, it has been contended, in, denial to the averment of the petitioner of the respondents, being lethargic, as well, as, showing un-interestedness, in conducting the investigation, into the offence, that rather the investigation into the case has been carried out, by, a specially constituted team of investigating Officers, for the speedy recovery of the tractors. It is, contended with force that investigation into the case, is, in progress and after presenting the challan in Court, against the accused persons that police is making all efforts to trace out the tractors. A perusal of Annexure P-2, which is the order rendered by JMIC-I, Kangra seized of the challan/report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C filed before it, in consequence to FIR No. 12/12, having been instituted against the main accused Kulbhushan, has, when seized with an application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C, for, ordering of further investigation in the case, had concluded that the investigation in the case, is, being carried in out, in, a valid and satisfactory manner. Besides, he also disallowed the prayer of the petitioner of the investigation into the case, being ordered, to, be conducted, by the some other agency. However, the learned trial Magistrate, in his orders, comprised in Annexure P-2, has in the concluding part given leeway, as well, as, latitude to the State police to carry out further investigation into the case. However, the said order rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Kangra, trying the accused, for his having allegedly committed the offence, has not come to be challenged, by the petitioner, before the competent Court, having jurisdiction in the matter. The unavailment by the petitioner, of, the alternative efficacious remedy, for quashing and undoing the order, comprised, in, Annexure P-2, obviously, in face thereof, bars this Court from entertaining the writ petition. Apart from the fact that hence the writ petition, is, not maintainable before this Court, the further fact, of, the State Police Agency, in, pursuance to the directions rendered, comprised in Annexure P-2, to, carry out further investigation, in, the matter having, as such, evident from the reply filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 come to commence investigation for location of tractors. It appears, hence, that when the said contention, in, the reply of the respondents, does, satisfy the conscience of this Court, that , hence, sincere efforts are being made by the Special Investigating Agency now constituted to locate the tractors, as also, when such efforts, do dispel allegations of immense lethargy and indolence of the State investigation agency, therefore, it being, not a, fit case for transfer of the case investigation from the State investigating agency, to, Central Bureau of Investigation. Therefore, when besides the, relief as sought earlier to the said extent stands rejected by an order, comprised in Annexure P-2 and when the said order has remained unchallenged before the competent Court, for which lack, of availment of an alternative remedy by the petitioner, the Court has concluded that the writ petition, is, not maintainable. Cumulatively when this Court, too, in the face of the reply filed by the respondents and, its not, divulging any lethargy or indolence or inactivity on the part of the respondents, to conduct investigation. Cumulatively when this Court, too, in the face of the reply filed by the respondents and, its not, divulging any lethargy or indolence or inactivity on the part of the respondents, to conduct investigation. In nutshell, then, when a special team has been constituted to carry out further investigation for locating the tractor trolleys, as such, its constitution constrains this Court, to, conclude that there, is, no well merited or substantial grounds made out by the petitioner for ordering the investigation to be conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.