Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 251 (ALL)

Swati Nirkhi v. State of U. P.

2017-01-18

RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA)

body2017
JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Heard Sri Amit Kumar along with Sri Vikas Srivastava for the applicants, Sri R.B. Singhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.B. Singhal for the first informant and AGA for State of UP. This application under Section 482 CrPC has been filed with the prayer to quash the Charge Sheet No. 28/16 dated 23.12.2016 submitted by the Police in pursuance of Case Crime No. 293 of 2016, under Section 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, Distt. Allahabad and also to stay further proceeding in Case No. 02 of 2017 (State Vs. Swati Nirkhi and others) pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. The FIR of Case Crime No. 293 of 2016 has been lodged on the complaint of Rajendra Khare, opposite party no. 4 on 25.5.2016. After lodging the FIR, the matter has been investigated by In-charge Inspector, P.S. Civil Lines/In-charge Crime Branch, Allahabad. It is stated that Senior Superintendent of Police, Allahabad by order dated 27.12.2016, transferred the investigation from In-charge Inspector, P.S. Civil Lines, Allahabad/In-charge Crime Branch, Allahabad to Circle Officer City 2nd/Karchhana/Traffic/Crime, Allahabad. The order relating to transfer of investigation has been communicated to the previous Investigating Officer on 28.12.2016. Then he submitted an antedated charge sheet dating in it as 23.12.2016 before the court concerned on 2.1.2017 on which cognizance has been taken by the court below on the same day. The counsel for the applicants submits that charge sheet is antedated inasmuch as at present, usually, the computerized charge sheet is being submitted but in the present case, the charge sheet which has been submitted before the court concerned, is a manuscripted charge sheet as there was no chance of antedating the computerized charge sheet. The Investigating Officer of Case Crime No. 660 of 2015 was in touch with the accused person at every stage. Even he supplied the papers relating to investigation to them, which was proved from the fact that in the FIR of Case Crime No. 293 of 2016, paper nos. SCD-1, SCD-2 and SCD-3 of previous investigation of Case Crime No. 660 of 2015 had been mentioned. Although it is a privileged document and in view of the provisions of Section 172 (3) Cr. P.C., the accused cannot be supplied copy of it. SCD-1, SCD-2 and SCD-3 of previous investigation of Case Crime No. 660 of 2015 had been mentioned. Although it is a privileged document and in view of the provisions of Section 172 (3) Cr. P.C., the accused cannot be supplied copy of it. But as the accused have been interfering in every stage of investigation of previous case, therefore, under their influence, the present charge sheet has been submitted antedating it, although the investigation has already been transferred from the In-charge Inspector, P.S. Civil Lines, Allahabad/In-charge Crime Branch, Allahabad. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the records. So far as supply of papers of Case Crime No. 660 of 2015 i.e. SCD-1, SCD-2 and SCD-3 and previous case diary to the accused person are concerned, this point was available to the applicants while they had filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14148 of 2016 as well as Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 22767 of 2016, as in the earlier writ petitions, the registration of FIR, has been challenged before this Court but this Court has not found any sufficient ground to quash the FIR and Division Bench of this Court by judgement dated 9.1.2017 has dismissed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 14148 of 2016 and by judgment dated 27.10.2016 dismissed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 22767 of 2016. As such this Court will not be able to re-examine the aforesaid fact in the proceeding where the charge sheet has been challenged. So far as the issue as to whether the charge sheet has been submitted antedating it, is concerned, it is a highly disputed question of fact. The argument of the counsel for the applicants that in usual practice a computerized charge sheet is being filed but in the present case a manuscripted charge sheet has been filed. If the charge sheet is antedated then it is a highly disputed question of fact and evidence is required to decide this issue. For adducing evidence the parties have to participate inthe proceeding before the court below. At the initial stage without there being any evidence before the court below, this issue cannot be decided in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Thus only on this ground, this Court can not interfere in the matter. The application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.