- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicants at great length and learned A. G. A.
(2.) THE first information report was registered against the applicant Ram Sanhei, Rajendra Singh and Durvesh as Case Crime No. 79 of 2007, under sections 342, 171 (g) IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of SC/st Act at P. S. Chaubia, District Etawah on 12. 7. 2000 at 11. 05 a. m. (Annexure No. 1) lodged by Hammir Singh Gautam. To cut short the controversy, I do not go into the allegations leveled in the first information report as that is not rele vant and germane for deciding the present application. The offences were investigated by the police who found that no offence has been committed by the applicants and therefore the Investigating Officer submit ted a final report on 1. 9. 2007 vide annexure No. 3 to this application being final report No. 36 of 2007. On the said final report notice was issued to the informant Hammir Singh Gautam who lodged the protest petition vide annexure No. 4. looking to the protest petition and the material contained in the case diary. Judicial Magistrate-IInd Etawah in the relevant case Hammir Singh Gautam v. Ram Sanehi and others, vide his order dated 28. 3. 2008, rejected the final report and directed for further investigation un der section 173 (8) Cr. P. C. Hence this appli cation under section 482 Cr. P. C. has been preferred by the applicants who are ac cused in the first information report and in favour of whom final report was submitted with the prayer to quash the order for fur ther investigation dated 28. 3. 2008.
(3.) AT the very outset the question cropped up for consideration is whether the applicant have any right to maintain this application under section 482 Cr. P. C. or not ? Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicants argued that once the final report was accepted and there was an order favourable to the appli cants any further investigation will jeop ardised applicants liberty, as the Investigat ing Officer gets the right to apprehend them in the aforesaid crime number. Learned Counsel for the applicants has also contended that there is reasonable appre hension that the liberty of the applicants can be snatched away and therefore they have invoked the inherent powers of this Court under section 482 Cr. P. C.;