- (1.) KUNDAN Singh, J. This revision is directed against the order dated 29-8-1991, passed by the Illid Additional Munsif Magistrate, Jaunpur, in Case No. 121 of 1990 whereby the application of the accused applicants for staying the inquiry proceedings and not to commit the case to Court of Sessions till the conclusion of re- investigation by CB C1d, was dismissed and the accused including the applicants were directed to appear on 17-9-1991 for the committal of their case to the Court of Sessions.
(2.) APPREHENDING that the impugned order may be treated as an inter locutory order, to be on the safer side the applicants also moved an application for conversion of the petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. The parties have exchanged the affidavits. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on record. It is a case relating to an incident which took place in the night of 13/14-10- 1990 in village Shahpur, police station Meerganj, District Jaunpur. Several persons were done to death and others sustained injuries and few houses were looted. The applicants were identified by the witnesses in electric light and were named in the F. I. R. A case under Section 396, I. P. C. was registered against the applicants and others. After completion of the investigation the Investigating Officer submit ted charge-sheet in court against the applicants and others. Since then the case is pending in inquiry before the Magistrate for committal. According to the opposite parties when the applicants found to escape from severe punish ment, they exerted influence at the State Government level and succeeded in getting re-investigation by CB CID ordered from the State Government. One application on behalf of the CB CID was moved on 2-7-1991 seeking formal permission to reinvestigate the case and for handing over the Case Diary and other papers to them. The copies of required papers were given to CB CID accordingly. Thereafter an application on behalf of the applicants was moved before the Magistrate with the prayer to stay inquiry proceedings and not to commit the case, to the Court of Sessions till the conclusion of the re-investi gation by CB CID. The Magistrate rejected the application of the applicants by the impugned order and directed the accused to be present in court on the next date for committal of the case to the Court of Session. There is no material on record to show that was the grounds for the direction of re-investigation of the case by the State Government. The issue that centers round the main controversy is whether it was obligatory for the Magistrate to stay the judicial proceedings (Inquiry proceedings) once he had taken cognizance of the offence till the conclusion of reinvestigation which has been ordered on later stage cither by the State Government or by the court itself. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that once the re-investigation is ordered, it is obligatory for the Magistrate to stay proceed ings pending in inquiry till the conclusion of re- investigation otherwise the applicants will have to suffer loss of money, time and harassment and the whole proceedings will be set at naught in case the Investigating Officer on re-investigation comes to the conclusion that no case to proceed against the applicants is made out and he relied upon the following reported decisions : (1) Hari Shanker Dayal Pandey v. State of U. P. , reported in 1987 A Cr J 76. (2) Suresh and others v. State of U. P. , reported in 1984 LLJ 105. (3) Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Administration), reported in 1979 Cr LJ 1346 (SC ). (4) Day a Shanker Singh v. State of U. P. , reported in A Cr R 301. (5) Hari Singh. State of U. P. , reported in 1993 UP Cr R 417: 1993 JIC 698. (6) Smt. Prem Lata Sawhney and others v. Slate of U. P. , reported in 1993 UP Cr R 21. (7) Cyan Swamp Gvpla v. Slate oj U. P. , reported in 1993 UP Cr R 427: 1993 JIC 903. (8) Zuljlqar Beg v. State of U. P. reported in 1990 A Cr R 611: 1993 JIC 767.
(3.) IN the case Suresh and others v. State of U. P. , 1984 LLJ 105, this Court passed a casual remark against an Cider for police remand and observed that it will be open to the INvestigating Officer to inform the Court where the matter is pending and obtain its permission to reinvestigate the matter further in order to bring additional evidence on record and the court can in the meanwhile stay the proceedings as usual till that part of the investigation is also completed. This Court directed in that case to stay the proceedings only in order to bring the additional evidence on record, if it is obtained at the instance of the accused in police custody for the completion of that part of the investiga tion and till then the lower court was directed to stay the proceedings. The ratio of that decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.;