Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3654 (ALL)

Umesh Chandra Kaushik v. Shri Gaje Singh

2016-11-08

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2016
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Bhaskar Bhadra, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. The present appeal has been filed under Section 341 Cr.P.C. against the order of Additional Sessions Judge dated 23.08.2016 by which Additional Sessions Judge has declined to take cognizance on the application moved by the appellant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the order dated 04.10.2016 the learned counsel for the appellant was granted adjournment to satisfy the maintainability of the appeal. A perusal of the application dated 11.08.2016 filed by the appellant shows that he was Investigating Officer in Case Crime No. 20 of 2013, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station Chandinagar, District Baghpat. According to the appellant he submitted a charge sheet in this case against Farman son of Rafeeq, Shakir son of Farooq, Farooq son of Rahanuddin and Shahid son of Yashin. It is alleged in the application that Gaje Singh Investigation Officer and Pankaj Kumar Additional Superintendent of Police CBCID has cancelled the charge-sheet submitted by the appellant and submitted another charge-sheet in that case on 07.04.2014 against Farooq alone. Although they had no jurisdiction to cancel the charge-sheet. On this allegation the application has been moved for their prosecution. The court below by the impugned order found that cognizance has not been taken on the charge-sheet dated 23.09.2013 rather cognizance was taken on the charge-sheet dated 07.04.2014. As such he relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar vs. Lalu Singh (2014 1 SCC 633), the application of the petitioner was found not maintainable and accordingly, it has been dismissed. Hence this appeal has been filed. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties. Section 340 Cr.P.C. provides- When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, then the complaint in this respect can be lodged. So far as Section 195 (1) (b) is concerned it is in respect of offence committed in the proceeding of any Court. In the present case the matter has been referred to CBCID in exercise of powers under Section 158 Cr.P.C. Thus before taking cognizance on the charge-sheet submitted by the petitioner, the superior officer has cancelled the charge-sheet exercising the power under Section 173 (3) Cr.P.C. As such no offence has been committed in the proceedings of the Court and application was not maintainable and it has been rightly dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.