YOGENDRA KUMAR SANGAL, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 01.06.2010 passed by the Session Judge, Gonda in Criminal Revision No. 165 of 2010 contained in Annexure -1 of the petition and also for issuing direction not to proceed further for de-novo investigation or further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. against the petitioner.
(2.) A report was lodged against the petitioner and others for the offence under Sections 147,148,149,302,201 IPC at Police Station Wazirganj, district Gonda. After the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons for their trial for the aforesaid offences. After taking cognizance, learned Magistrate committed the case to the court of Session. Charge was framed against the accused persons. At this stage, an application was moved by the investigating agency/police before the C.J.M. to permit for further investigation in the matter. Learned C.J.M. has rejected the application stating that the file is with the Session court and no paper is pending with him. A Revision was filed against this order before the learned Session Judge on behalf of the State/Investigating agency. By the impugned order, learned Session Judge held in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Ram Chaudhari vs. State 2009(3) JIC 502 that under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. that law does not mandate taking prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation in the matter, although already charge-sheet has been submitted in that case. It is statutory right of the Police of further investigation. Aggrieved by this order, this petition under Section 482 has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded at Bar that as per law laid down by the apex Court, there is no need for seeking permission of the Magistrate or the court for further investigation by the Police in the matter, although charge-sheet has already been submitted and proceedings in the case are going on in the Court. Learned counsel simply pressed that certain directions has been issued by the learned Sessions Judge to the Police in what manner further investigation is to be made by the Police. I asked learned counsel for the petitioner to point out in the impugned order what such direction has been given by the learned Session Judge to the Police in this regard but he failed to point out any such direction given by the Court.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further argued that without giving opportunity of hearing to the accused/applicant learned Session Judge has passed the impugned order. Accused persons even were not joined in the Revision filed by the State before the Session Judge. Learned AGA conceded the correctness of this argument but argued that no such order has been passed by the learned Session Judge from which it can be said that accused has prejudiced by that. Learned Session Judge has simply cited the law laid down by the apex Court and other courts on the point held that there is no necessity to seek prior permission of the court for further investigation in the matter by the Police. It is statutory right of the Police to further investigate in the matter but learned AGA conceded this fact that simply an information it required from the Police to the court concerned. By the impugned order of learned Session Judge it cannot be taken that in any manner accused persons/petitioner can be treated to be prejudiced. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no need for interference of this Court under the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Application has no force, accordingly the same is hereby dismissed.;