PUSHPA PANDURANG MOKAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARAHTRA AND OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Pushpa Pandurang Mokal And Others
State Of Maharahtra And Others
Click here to view full judgement.
A. S. Oka, J. -
(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State. Considering the narrow controversy involved in the Application, forthwith taken up for final disposal. Considering the peculiar facts of the case and the directions which we propose to issue, in our opinion, notice to the second Respondent is not necessary.
(2.) The second Respondent is the First Informant, at whose instance CR.216/15 was registered with CBD Police Station, Navi Mumbai. The FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the Application, it is pointed out that the Investigating Officer after completing the investigation has filed a final report under Section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Vashi at Navi Mumbai. The report was filed on 7 April, 2016. The report is for claiming "C"-summary. It appears that on 16 April, 2016, the Investigating Officer (Asst.Inspector of Police of CBD Police Station) addressed an application to the learned Judicial Magistrate stating that as the second Respondent has made an application to the Higher Officers for re-investigation of the offence, the original documents submitted along with the report be returned to the Investigating Officer for the purposes of re-investigation.
(3.) Notwithstanding the filing of the Report claiming "C" summary, the present Application under Section 482 is filed for quashing the First Information Report on the ground that now re-investigation will be commenced by the Investigating Officer, as on 16 April, 2016 itself, the learned Magistrate returned the original documents to the Investigating Officer.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.