- (1.) HEARD Sri Narendra Singh and Sri Majhar Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Islam Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.
(2.) THIS petitioner has been preferred by the petitioner Mahesh Kumar with the following prayer: (a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order/direction dated 21.7.2010 No. 136 MM/6P -3 -2010 -15(23)F/2010 passed by Govt. of Uttar Pradesh for further investigation of Case Crime No. 615 of 2009, under section 364 -A, 120 -B IPC, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar. (b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to harass the petitioner to call for recording statements in pursuant of the order dated 21.7.2010. (c) a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (d) To award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. The facts in brief of this case are that the FIR was lodged by the petitioner in case crime No. 615 of 2009 under section 364 IPC, P.S. Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar on 10.8.2009 at 18.20 P.M. in respect of the alleged incident dated 9.8.2009 occurred at about 8.45 P.M. in which five persons namely Hanoman, Smt. Manju Devi, Shri Ram, Ram Shanker and Sandeep Tiwari were named as accused and two persons were unknown. The allegation against them was that they had kidnapped the son of the petitioner namely Nikhil Kumar aged about 4 -5 years. After lodging the FIR the investigation of this case was done by civil police and after completing the investigation the charge sheet dated 17.11.2009 was submitted by its I.O. Sri Prashant Kumar Prasad, Circle Officer. Govind Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. The charge sheet was submitted against Hanoman @ Hanuman Singh, Shri Ram, Rama Shanker, Sandeep Tiwari, Raj Kumar Tiwari and Uday Shanker Mishra for the offence punishable under sections 364, 120 -B IPC and section 3(2)V SC/ST Act. On the charge sheet dated 17.11.2009 the learned C.M.M. Kanpur Nagar took the cognizance on 21.11.2009, thereafter on an application moved by the accused Sri Ram Kuril forwarded by Smt. Pratibha Shukla, then M.L.A. Chaubeypur, Kanpur Nagar, through letter dated 15.2.2010. The State Government took the decision to transfer the investigation of the above mentioned case to CBCID, the same was communicated to Director General CBCID, U.P. Lucknow by Sri Awadhesh Narayan, Deputy Secretary, U.P. Government by letter dated 21.7.2010. The letter dated 21.7.2010 is under challenged.
(3.) THE present writ petition has been filed on the following grounds: 1.Because after proper investigation local/ Civil Police submitted charge sheet against six accused persons including accused Hanuman (Police Constable) and learned Magistrate has taken cognizance 2.Because after submission of charge sheet and cognizance on the same Govt. of Uttar Pradesh directed CBCID for further investigation by order No. 136 MM/6P -3 -2010 -15(23)P/2010 vide order dated 21.7.2010 without the permission of Court. 3. Because CBCID pressurising the petitioner to make statement in the favour of accused constable Hanuman and his relatives in the same connection on 23.7.2012 at about 144 P.M. and 1.50 P.M. he has called by Mob. No. 9450157479 on his Mob. No. 9307066048 to aappear at branch Gwal Toli. He appeared with his wife but CBCID threaten to them for making statement in favour of accused Hanuman and the relatives. 4. Because the opposite party has good relation with political person who exercising his influence got the case transferred to the CBCID. In the investigation conducted by Civil Police, statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by I.O. and on the basis of material available charge sheet was submitted which prima facie discloses commission of the cognizable offence or which charge sheet has been submitted. When after investigation charge sheet has been submitted. Accused has got no right for further investigation and to delay the trial. 5.Because it is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions of Section 173(8) merely enable the police to further investigate in case the office incharge of the police station obtained further evidence oral or documentary, but it does not give right to accused to ask for further investigation as a matter of right. ;