High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Virendra Nath Tiwari v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 9935 of 2004  RD-AH 386 (5 January 2006)
Criminal Misc.Writ Petition No. 9935 of 2004
Virendra Nath Tiwari .....Petitioner
State of U.P. & others .....Respondents
Hon'ble S.Rafat Alam, J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
We have heard Sri P.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents.
Pursuant to this Court's order dated 7.12.2004 counter affidavit has already been filed by the Investigating Officer wherein it has been stated that the investigation in Case Crime No. 287 of 2002, under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304-A and 427 I.P.C., Police Station Rani Ki Sarai, District Azamgarh was earlier made by the Civil Police and final report was submitted before the learned Magistrate. However, the same was not accepted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh and re-investigation was directed.
It appears that in the meanwhile, the complainant-petitioner moved an application before the Home Secretary, U.P. Lucknow for entrusting the investigation to some other agency. However, during the pendency of that application before the Home Secretary, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 2434 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.4.2004 with the direction to the Home Secretary to pass appropriate order on the aforesaid representation of the petitioner within one week from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Consequently, the Home Department vide order dated 8.7.2004 entrusted the investigation to CBCID.
It is stated by the learned Additional Government Advocate as has also been averred in para-6 of the counter affidavit that the investigation has been completed by the CBCID. However, the report could not be filed in the court since it has been sent for approval to the Headquarter. It is further stated that the same would be filed in the court immediately after getting the approval from the Headquarter.
The relief sought for in the writ petition is only to command respondent no.4, Inspector CBCID, Gorakhpur to complete the investigation in Case Crime No. 287 of 2002. Since respondent no.4 has completed the investigation and has also prepared the report which would be filed in court as has been informed by the learned Additional Government Advocate immediately after the approval of the Headquarter, in our view, the writ petition has become infructuous and no further order is required to be passed in these proceedings.
Sri P.N.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the CBCID while making enquiry did not bother to record the statement of the complainant. Since the report is yet to be filed in the court, therefore, at this stage we cannot express any opinion in respect of the investigation of the petitioner's case.
That apart, the petitioner has adequate remedy under the Cr.P.C. itself. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition as it has become infructuous.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.