Ravindra Singh - (1.) THIS application has been filed by the applicant Anil Baranwal with a prayer to quash the Charge-Sheet No. 94 of 2008 in Case Crime No. 420 of 2003 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 120B, I.P.C. pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur vide Criminal Case No. 1678 of 2008.
(2.) THE facts, in brief, of this case are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by O.P. No. 2 Omkar Nath at Police Station Kotwali City, Mirzapur in which the charge-sheet dated 19.8.2003 has been submitted, on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance and summoned the applicant and other co-accused persons to face the trial. The allegation against the applicant and other co-accused persons is that a portion of the house was given by O.P. No. 2 on rent to co-accused Ram Bilas Mishra for which the rent deed dated 1.12.1995 was executed, it was renewed on 1.11.1996, the boundaries of the rented house clearly mentioned in the above mentioned deed. But for the purpose of grabbing the house, the accused persons prepared a forged rented deed and receipt , thereafter, the accused persons hurled the abuses and extended the threat of life to the O.P. No. 2, after investigation, the charge-sheet dated 7.11.2003 was submitted against the co-accused Ram Bilas Mishra, Raj Kumar Sharma and Umesh Chandra Shukla, thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur directed the S.H.O. of Kotwali City, Mirzapur for doing further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after obtaining the permission from the Court, thereafter, the further investigation was done and the charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicant and five other co-accused persons including Ram Bilas Mishra, Raj Kumar Sharma and Umesh Chandra Shukla. Being aggrieved from the above mentioned charge-sheet, the present application has been filed for the purpose of quashing the same. Heard Sri Rajeev Chaddha, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case, there is dispute in respect of the tenancy, the co-accused Ram Bilas Mishra filed a Civil Suit No. 155 of 2001 for permanent injunction, the civil court has granted a temporary injunction on 30.5.2002, the same has been challenged by filing an appeal which has been dismissed on 8.12.2004, thereafter, a separate suit for injunction and arrears of rent has been filed by O.P. No. 2 against Ram Bilas Mishra, the same is pending thereafter an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P.C. has been filed by O.P. No. 2, the same has been allowed on 19.8.03. In pursuance of that order, the F.I.R. in Case Crime No. 420 of 2003 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 and 120B, I.P.C. has been registered on 19.8.2003, after its investigation, the charge-sheet against co-accused Ram Bilas Mishra, Raj Kumar Sharma and Umesh Chandra Shukla has been submitted under Sections 504 and 506, I.P.C. only on 7.11.2003, on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance and charge has been framed that was not protested by O.P. 2 by way of filing any protest application, but all of a sudden, the S.P. Mirzapur directed the S.H.O., Kotwali City, district Mirzapur for doing further investigation after obtaining the permission from the Court. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer of this case has moved an application dated 9.3.2006 in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur mentioning therein that S.P. Mirzapur directed for doing the further investigation vide order dated 4.3.2006, thereafter an application dated 19.3.2004 was moved for granting permission and for doing the further investigation and returning the case diary and charge-sheet etc. but when no such order has been passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur, without obtaining the permission from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mirzapur the charge-sheet dated 27.2.2008 of this case has been submitted by the Investigating Officer, on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken cognizance, which is illegal.
(3.) IN reply to above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that in this case, the investigation was done by the Investigating Officer and charge-sheet was submitted against three persons under Sections 504 and 506, I.P.C., the superior officers were not satisfied with the investigation done by the Investigating Officer, thereafter the S.P., Mirzapur, who is a superior officer, directed for doing further investigation after obtaining permission from the Court for which the application was given by the Investigating Officer, the Court was duly informed according to the provisions of Section 173 (8), Cr. P.C., the prior permission of the Court is not pre-condition. There is no illegality in doing the further investigation and submitting the charge-sheet in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, the present application is devoid of merits, the same may be dismissed. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U. P. and from the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case, the F.I.R. was lodged against six persons including the applicant but after investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 504 and 506, I.P.C. against the 3 accused persons, with that investigation, the S.P., Mirzapur was not satisfied who directed the S.H.O. of Police Station, Kotwali, City Mirzapur for doing the further investigation, thereafter the Investigating Officer moved an application before the learned C.J.M. for obtaining the permission and return of case diary etc., after further investigation, the charge-sheet has been submitted on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance. Being a superior officer, the S.P., Mirzapur was empowered to direct the S.H.O. of Police Station Kotwali, City Mirzapur for doing further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the Cr. P.C. According to the provisions of Section 173 (8) of the Cr. P.C. to obtain the permission of the Court for doing the further investigation, is not pre-condition. Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under : "Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer-in-charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed ; and the provisions of sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far may be apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2)." ;