The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: – 2.1 That son of the appellant – Satyaveer @ Kallu was murdered by un-known persons. That thereafter, respondent No 8, namely, Ashwani Kumar filed the quashing petition before the High Court for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Case No 7626/2016 originating out of Case Crime
No 1069/2014 as well as for quashing of the chargesheet dated 02.12.2016.
By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the writ petition by observing that further investigation was ordered after intimation to the learned Magistrate and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Secretary (Home) directing further investigation.
Makhija, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the order passed by the Secretary (Home) transferring the investigation to CBCID is absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).
Makhija, learned Senior Advocate that in fact, the grounds on which the investigation was sought to be transferred can be said to be the defences on behalf of the accused which are required to be considered at the time of trial. It is submitted that even learned counsel for respondent
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/analysis-of-bail-granting-criteria-in-criminal-cases/
No 8 was wrong in making the submission before the High Court that the order passed by the Secretary (Home) of further investigation was passed after taking leave of the Magistrate competent to do so. 8 prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings including the chargesheet and respondent
No 8 failed up to this Court and only thereafter, when the non- bailable warrant was issued, on his behalf an application was moved for transfer of investigation.
While opposing the present appeal Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that having being satisfied that a case is made out for further investigation and to do the complete justice to the parties including the accused, no error has been committed by the Secretary (Home) in ordering further investigation by CBCID.
It is submitted that thereafter, when further investigation has been ordered by CBCID on the application of mother of the accused thereafter it is not open for the appellant to make a grievance that further investigation cannot be ordered by another agency – CBCID.
5 It is further submitted by Shri Nagamuthu, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No 8 that after the investigation by CBCID as ordered, a further report shall be submitted before the learned Magistrate and thereafter, there shall be three reports before the learned Magistrate, one on the basis of chargesheet, second on the basis of supplementary chargesheet and third on the basis of further investigation by CBCID and thereafter, it is ultimately for the learned Magistrate to consider the reports. It is required to be noted that thereafter, respondent No 8 approached this Court and the Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed by this Court and the interim protection in favour of respondent
The request of the mother of accused has been accepted by the Secretary (Home) and the investigation was transferred to another agency, namely, CBCID despite the fact that after the first chargesheet, the investigation was handed over to the District Crime Branch to further investigate the case and they filed the supplementary chargesheet in which respondent Nos. What is on record is only an intimation to the learned Magistrate which in any case cannot be said to be concurrence of the learned Magistrate.
Case Title: BOHATIE DEVI (DEAD) Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2023 INSC 465)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001294-001294 / 2023
