At, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SHARMA
For the Appellants: Swati Agrawal, Advocate. For the Respondents: --------.
Anil Kumar Sharma, J.
1. Supplementary-affidavit filed today is taken on record".
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The revisionists have challenged the order dated 6.1.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/A.C.J.M., Kaushambi, whereby the application of the revisionists for stay of the proceedings of criminal case No. 4
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
04/2013 and for issue of bailable warrant against them had been rejected.
The contention of the counsel for the revisionists is that from the medical report of the injured no offence u/s 308 IPC is made out and that's why on the application of the accused persons under the orders of the O.S.D. to Chief Minister, I.G. and his subordinate police officers have directed further investigation of the case. In this connection learned counsel has placed reliance on the case of Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P., On perusal of this report, it is found that Investigating Officer under the orders of the Government for further investigation has applied to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take finger prints and specimen signatures of the accused who were languishing in lock-up. On these facts the Court came to the conclusion that the order of the Magistrate refusing to stay the trial appears to be not sound in the eyes of law. In the facts of the instant case, it is apparent that revisionist had filed application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3137/2014 for quashing the charge-sheet dated 20.8.2013, cognisance order dated 13.10.2013 as well as the entire proceeding of case No. 404/2013 arising out of case crime No. 144/2013, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 308, 506 IPC, P.S. Charwa, District Kaushambi pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi. It was argued on behalf of the revisionists that from the injuries sustained by the injured no case u/s 308 IPC is made out. This Court has repelled this argument and refused to quash the charge-sheet and the proceedings of the case.
2. It is important to note here that in the case of Daya Shanker Singh v. State of U.P., 1988 (25) ACC 270, it has been observed by this Court that Court is not bound to stay criminal trial in every case where further investigation is being conducted. In the case of Julfiqar Beg @ Baby v. State of U.P., 1992 Cr LJ 2067, this Court relying upon the case of Daya Shanker Singh (supra) has observed that if after cognisance being taken by the Magistrate further investigation is carried out, the Magistrate is not bound to stay the proceeding of the case. It appears that these cases were not taken note by the bench deciding the case of Rakesh Kumar Srivastava (supra).
3. In the instant case the learned counsel for the revisionists was confused to some extent with regard to the date of order taking cognisance in the case by the learned Magistrate. She vehemently argued that the order of further investigation was passed by Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi on 10.10.2013 (page 67 of the paper book) while the learned Magistrate has taken cognisance on the police charge-sheet vide order dated 17.10.2013. In fact the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi has directed further investigation of the case vide order dated 10.11.2013 and pursuant to this order the Investigating Officer has applied for return of case diary etc. to the Court on 18.11.2013. Thus it is quite clear that learned Magistrate has taken cognisance of the case against the revisionists prior to the order of further investigation passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi. The record further shows that Investigating Officer while submitting the charge-sheet against the revisionists has recorded the statement of Dr. G.D. Dwivedi who has specifically stated that injuries of Vikram Verma were serious and could have been fatal.
In these circumstances learned trial Court has not at all erred in refusing to stay the proceeding of the case pending further investigation of the case.
In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 18.1.2014 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi. The revision sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.