Naheed Ara Moonis, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar learned counsel for the revisionists and Sri Abdul Majeed learned AGA appearing on behalf of State and have also gone through the record.
(2.) By means of the instant revision, the revisionists have challenged the order dated 25.5.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Siddharth Nagar in Criminal Case No. 1475 of 2015 (State v. Bali Bhadra Nath Shukla and others) under sections 147/148/452/323/504/506/325 IPC Police Station Jogiya Udaipur District Siddharth Nagar whereby the learned Magistrate rejected by the supplementary report submitted by the investigating officer under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.
(3.) The prosecution version in a short conspectus is that the opposite party no.2 lodged the first information report on 31.3.2015 against the applicants vide Case Crime No. 841A of 2014 under sections 147/148/452/323/504/506 IPC. After registration of the case, the investigating officer swung into action and submitted the charge sheet on 14.4.2015 against the applicants for the offences punishable under sections 147/148/452/323/504/506/325 IPC of which court below has taken cognizance on 25.4.2015. During the pendency of the case R.N. Yadav, investigating officer moved an application under section 173 8) Cr.P.C to provide case diary and other documents and also to permit him to conduct further investigation as the applicants had approached to the Superintendent of Police Siddharth Nagar for further investigation by independent police officer as the earlier investigating officer was supporting the accused respondent of Case Crime No. 841 of 2014. Learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties allowed the application for further investigation vide order dated 2.1.2016. The investigation was taken over by S.I. Ram Ashish Yadav and Hari Sewak Shukla. The investigating officer took into account the affidavits filed by the villagers disowning the allegations made in the FIR which was entered into case diary as Supplementary Case Diary -IV. The investigating officer recorded the statement of Om Prakash Chaubey, the then Station Officer who was posted at the time of incident at the police station Jogiya Udaipur, District Siddharth Nagar demonstrating therein that the applicants have been falsely implicated. The statement of the investigating officer Om Prakash was recorded vide Parcha no. SCD-XIV. The statement of H.C.Ram Mani Tripathi was recorded who had stated that the opposite party no.2 has lodged the first information report to save his skin as the complainant and other persons had assaulted the applicant no.2 Shashi Kant in the presence of police. This statement was recorded on 5.3.2016 and was made part of the case diary. Thus after collecting the evidence, he submitted the report under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. on 11.3.2016 as SCD No.27 stating therein that the first information report lodged by the opposite party no.2 is based upon fabricated facts. There is no evidence regarding incident and no offence is made out against the revisionists as alleged by the opposite party no.2. The supplementary report was received in the court of learned Magistrate on 13.3.2016 whereupon date was fixed for passing the final order. The opposite party no.2 filed a protest petition against the report submitted by the investigating officer under section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. and after considering the submission of both sides, the learned court below rejected the supplementary report submitted by the investigating officer in respect to the conclusion drawn with regard to further investigation that no offence is made out against the revisionist.;