Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3316 (ALL)

Rajesh Pradhan v. State of U. P.

2015-10-26

BHARAT BHUSHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Bharat Bhushan, J. List has been revised. None present for the applicants. 2. Learned AGA is present for the State. 3. It appears that informant filed an application under section 156(3) which was allowed by the court concerned vide order dated 29.10.2010. This order was challenged by filing criminal revision No. 5587 of 2010 (Rajesh Versus State of U.P.) against the aforesaid order. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 9.12.2010 disposed of the revision by the following order : - "Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A. G. A. and perused the record. The present criminal revision has been filed by the revisionist for quashing the order dated 29.10.2010 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2nd, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Application No. 592 of 2010; Guddu Singh Versus Rajesh Prasad whereby application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. filed by the opposite party no. 2 has been allowed. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist is peace living person. He shall cooperate with the investigation. In case, he is arrested and sent to jail during investigation, the revisionist shall suffer irreparable loss. Therefore, the revisionist may not be arrested during investigation. Having heard the submissions and perused the material on record, this application is finally disposed of with a direction that pursuant to the impugned order dated 29.10.2010 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 2nd, Kanpur Nagar on the application filed by opposite party no. 2 under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C., if any case has been registered against the revisionist at the concerned police station, then investigation in the matter may go on but the revisionist shall not be arrested till the submission of the report under Section 173 (2) Cr. P. C. provided he cooperates with the investigation. If the F. I. R. has already been registered pursuant to the impugned order, this order will have no effect. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of" 4. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the court concerned against Rajesh Pradhan, Santosh Pradhan and Sarveshwar Pradhan under sections 323, 324, 307, 452, 504, 506 IPC. Investigating Officer did not find any evidence against Ravi Shanker Dubey/Arvind Kumar Shukla, therefore, he was not charge sheeted. With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of" 4. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed in the court concerned against Rajesh Pradhan, Santosh Pradhan and Sarveshwar Pradhan under sections 323, 324, 307, 452, 504, 506 IPC. Investigating Officer did not find any evidence against Ravi Shanker Dubey/Arvind Kumar Shukla, therefore, he was not charge sheeted. This charge-sheet was challenged by filing Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. being number 24934 of 2012 (Rajesh Pradhan and others versus State of U.P. and others) which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 13.9.2012. Now Second APPLICATION U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been moved seeking transfer of this case to some other agency for further investigation. 5. I am afraid, this application is not sustainable for the simple reason that matter has already been investigated and charge sheeted. If the Investigating Officer does not seek permission for further investigation, then ordinarily the court can not order any investigation once the charge-sheet has been filed pursuant to investigation. This Court can not analyze the prosecution evidence in detail. Credibility of evidence can not be considered at this stage. In fact, matter has already been dealt with in earlier proceedings under section 482 Cr.P.C. This second application, virtually agitating the same points, can not be entertained. 6. From the perusal of material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicants. All the submissions made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court concerned through Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar within two weeks.