Raj Mani Chauhan, J. - (1.) SRI A.P. Mishra, Advocate files Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite party No. 2 which is taken on record.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A for the State as well as learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2. This petition under Section of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Code) has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate -Ist, Sultanpur by which he has rejected the remand request made by the Investigating Officer and let the accused Subedar/opposite party No. 2 to go scot -free.
(3.) THE submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of written report of complainant (present petitioner) the police of Police Station Chanda, District Sultanpur registered a case under Sections , , I.P.C. against the four accused for investigation. The Investigating Officer during investigation arrested one of the accused Subedar Singh and he produced the accused before the Magistrate concerned along with application for remand of the accused Subedar Singh under Sections , , I.P.C on the basis of evidence collected by him which was allowed by the Magistrate. Accused thereafter moved an application for bail which was allowed by the learned Magistrate and he was ordered to be released on bail. Later on, on the basis of complaint of the complainant, Investigating Officer was changed. The second Investigating Officer on the basis of injury report of the injured as well as statements of the witnesses found that there was, prima facie, evidence in support of offence under Section I.P.C. Consequently, accused Subedar Singh again arrested by the Investigating Officer and he was produced before the Magistrate concerned along with application for remand who refused the prayer of remand with the observation that the injury report of the injured as well as statements of witnesses recorded by the second Investigating Officer were the same as collected by the First Investigating Officer. There was no additional evidence on the case diary to show that the accused was guilty under Section I.P.C. Learned Counsel submits that this observation of the learned Magistrate is illegal and without jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is liable to be quashed.;