High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sunita & Another v. State Of U.P. & Another - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 14873 of 2006  RD-AH 20787 (8 December 2006)
Court No. 45
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 14873 OF 2006
Sunita and another Vs. State of U.P. and another.
Hon. Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
The order dated 3.2.2006 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi Nagar and order dated 4.10.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Kushi Nagar at Padrauna are impugned in the instant writ petition.
The respondent no. 2 lodged a first information report against the petitioners in case Crime No. 163 of 1993, under Section 294 I.P.C. Police Station Khadda, District Deoria (now district Kushi Nagar) on 23.11.1993. However, the petitioners approached the Superintendent of Police, Deoria bringing to his notice that the charge sheet submitted is a result of tainted charge sheet. The Superintendent of Police, Deoria got the inquiry conducted through Circle Officer, Hata, Padrauna who submitted his report on 14.12.1994. Subsequently the investigation was carried out and the Circle Officer submitted final report against the petitioners. Copy of the final report dated 22.1.1995 is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioners moved an application against the respondent no. 2 Gyanendra Singh-Ex Station House Officer, Police Station Khadda, District Kushi Nagar. A report was lodged at case crime No. 23 of 1994, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 356, 384 I.P.C. and Section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act and under the provisions of S.C./S.T. Act. The investigation was carried out by the CBCID Branch Gorakhpur. The respondent no. 2 filed Criminal Revision No. 110 of 2004 on the ground that the order dated 2.8.2003 was without any notice and the Additional District and Sessions Judge allowed the revision setting aside the order dated 2.8.2003 and directed both the parties to appear before the court below. A protest petition was filed by the respondent no. 2 against the final report. The petitioners preferred an objection to the protest petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi Nagar. Further investigation was directed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi Nagar vide order dated 3.2.2006 under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and it was also directed that the investigation shall be carried out by some Gazetted Police Officer. The petitioners preferred Criminal Revision No. 41 of 2006 before District and Sessions Judge, Kushi Nagar. The revision was partly allowed vide order dated 4.10.2006. The order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi Nagar was modified only to the limited extent that the investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. be conducted by a Police Officer. The direction that the investigation shall be made by the Gazetted Police Officer was however, set at naught. Both the orders are impugned in the instant writ petition.
I have perused the impugned orders and I am not inclined to interfere in the same since the matter is being investigated in pursuance to the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kushi Nagar and confirmed in revision. The order for further investigation can not be interfered by this Court since it is only to ascertain the correctness of the allegation made in the first information report. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.