POONAM SRIVASTAV, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
(2.) THE proceeding arise out of an F.I.R. dated 24.8.2004 at the instance of opposite party no. 2 wife of Sri Jangali Singh, at Police Station Delhi Gate under Sections 364, 420, 467, 468 I.P.C. registered at case crime No. 343 of 2004. Final report was submitted by police on 27.8.2004. The S.S.P., Aligarh directed reinvestigation/further investigation vide order dated 14.3.2005. Once again it culminated in a final report. Protest petition was preferred on 17.11.2005 by opposite party no. 2 which was numbered as Misc. Case No. 1/12/2005. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Aligarh proceeded as a complaint case. Statement of Smt. Ganga Devi was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. On 15.11.2006, the S.S.P., Aligarh passed an order for investigation of the case crime no. 343 of 2006 which was directed to be transferred from police station Delhi Gate to Police Station Banna Devi, District Aligarh. A Writ Petition No. 3065 of 2007 was preferred by the revisionist Purshottam Sharma challenging the order of the S.S.P., Aligarh transferring investigation. The writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 3.8.2009. The grievance of the revisionist is that impugned order dated 7.1.2009 has been passed granting permission for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr. P.C.
(3.) THE first argument of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the impugned order is without jurisdiction, unreasonable, illegal and arbitrary. These objections are on a number of grounds, firstly that the charge sheet was submitted in case crime No. 343 of 2004 against two persons namely Smt. Jagbiri Devi alias Saroj Devi and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh which was challenged in Criminal Misc. Application No. 6164 of 2007 under Section Section 482 Cr.P.C. and this Court stayed further proceedings of case No. 4819 of 2005 pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, vider order dated 21.3.2007, which is annexed along with affidavit. The submission is that since further proceedings were stayed, no order could have been passed permitting further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.;