- (1.) Heard Sri Rahul Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State. This 482 Cr. P.C. application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 26.5.2012 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rampur and the order dated 3.7.2012 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Rampur in F.R. Case No. 121/12 of 2012, Hamid Ali v. Anjar Ahmad and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 1589 of 2011 under Sections 307, 384, 504 and 506 I.P.C., "police station Bilaspur, District Rampur. The brief facts of the case "are that opposite party No. 2 moved an application on 10.10.2011 under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. before the C.J.M. Rampur for directing the Station House Officer of the concerned police station, i.e., Bilaspur to register an F.I.R. against the applicants with respect to an incident which had taken place on 5.10.2011 at about 4:30 p.m. as the same has not been lodged by the concerned police station. The learned Magistrate allowed the said application of opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 3.11.2011 and directed the S.H.O. of the concerned police station to register an F.I.R. and investigate the matter. In pursuance of the said order, on 9.11.2011, F.I.R. was registered against: the applicants as Case Crime No. 1589 of 2011 under Sections 307, 389, 504 and, 506 I.P.C. and the investigation was entrusted to one Rajveer Singh, who after investigation, submitted a final report which was sent for approval to the Circle Officer concerned, who directed the Investigating Officer to further investigate the matter and thereafter the matter was investigated and final report was submitted on 21.12.2011 being F.R. No. 121/12 of 2012.
(2.) The opposite party No. 2 filed a protest petition on 27.4.2012 before the learned Magistrate for rejecting the final report. The learned Magistrate on 26.5.2012, after considering the prayer of opposite party No. 2 made in the protest petition filed by him for quashing the final report dated 21.12.2011, directed the Superintendent of Police, Rampur to further investigate the matter and entrust the investigation to an Investigating Officer for the said purpose. In pursuance of the said order, the Superintendent of Police, Rampur on 30.7.2012, entrusted the matter to the S.I.S.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the said orders dated 26.5.2012 and 30.7.2012, the applicants have approached this Court by filing the present application for quashing the same. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the order passed by the learned Magistrate on 26.5.2012 directing further investigation is in contravention with the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal, 2009 3 SCC(Cri) 1051. He submits that the order for further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr. P.C. by the Magistrate was not permissible under the law and has drawn the attention of the Court towards paras-25 and 26 of the said judgment which are quoted hereinbelow: 25. What emerges from the above mentioned decisions of this Court is that once a charge-sheet is filed under Section 173 (2) Cr. P.C. and either charge is framed or the accused are discharged, the Magistrate may, on the basis of a protest petition, take cognizance of the offence complained of or on the application made by the investigating authorities permit further investigation under Section 173 (8). The Magistrate cannot suo motu direct a further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr. P.C. or direct a reinvestigation into a case on account of the bar of Section 167 (2) of the Code. 26. In the instant case, the investigating authorities did not apply for further investigation and it was only upon the application filed by the de facto complainant under Section 173 (8) was a direction given by the learned Magistrate to re-investigate the matter. As we have already indicated above, such a course of action was beyond the jurisdictional competence of the Magistrate. Not only was the Magistrate wrong in directed a reinvestigation on the application made by the de facto complainant, but he also exceeded his jurisdiction in entertaining the said application filed by the de facto complainant.;