Amar Saran - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the applicant Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 Sri V. M. Zaidi and learned A.G.A.
(2.) THIS application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. has been filed for quashing a charge-sheet dated 7.6.2004 in Case Crime No. 370 of 2001, under Section 307, I.P.C., P. S. Kairana, district Muzaffar Nagar. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant Riyaz was a Pradhan and the other applicants were his brothers. The charge-sheet has falsely been submitted against them because opposite party No. 2 and his brother were land mafias who wanted to usurp the land of Gram Samaj which the applicants were trying to prevent and they have even made a complaint about this to the A.D.M., Muzaffar Nagar, in pursuance of which an enquiry report was submitted by the revenue authorities, asserting that the said persons wanted to grab gram samaj land. I do not think it would be proper for this Court to go into all these questions of fact in this application under Section 482, Cr. P.C. It will be open for the applicants to raise all the aforesaid contentions before the court below when they lead their evidence.
(3.) ANOTHER submission of the learned counsel was that although three accused-applicants are said to have fired indiscriminately, there is a single fire-arm injury on the injured Wadil. As there was a fire-arm injury on the abdomen of Wadil in which charring and burning were present, and also as the medical examination was conducted on the same day of the incident on 27.10.2001 at 7.10 p.m. (and the same were also confirmed in the X-ray report of the abdomen), I do not think that the charge-sheet could be quashed only because there was only one injury and three persons have resorted to firing. It was further argued that final report was submitted in this case earlier on 15.12.2001 and on a protest petition an order for re-investigation was passed by the learned C.J.M. on 24.9.2003, which was not permissible in law. Reliance was placed on the decision of K. Chandra Sekhar etc. v. State of Kerala and others, 1998 (37) ACC 136, in which it was directed that further investigation can be done by the police after submission of police report but it cannot do fresh investigation or re-investigation. It may be noted here that in Crl. Misc. Application No. 28959 of 2007, Kare Singh v. State of U. P. and others, decided on 1.2.2008, I have held that it is not material whether an order for investigation describes the same as reinvestigation and not as further investigation, because at best that could be described as an error in nomenclature and that in the said order in place of the word 're-investigation' the expression 'further investigation' should be read. In the said decision I have relied on the later Supreme Court decision in Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2001 SC 2721 : 2001 (3) ACR 1992 (SC), wherein, specifically in paragraph 16, it has been mentioned that the Court can order further investigation and when such an order is passed by a Court having jurisdiction to do so, it would not be a proper exercise of revisional power to interfere therewith because the further investigation would only serve the ends of justice. After the further investigation the authority conducting such investigation can either reach the same conclusions and reiterate the same or it can reach to a different conclusion. It has been observed in Hemant Dhasmana's case, in the paragraph under examination that "During such extended investigation the officers can either act on the same materials or other materials which come to their notice." The same view permitting further investigation or re-investigation even after a final report has been submitted closing the case has been taken in Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah, AIR 1997 SC 3876 : 1998 (1) ACR 384 (SC).;