Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J. - (1.) THROUGH the present petition, the Petitioners have impugned order Annexure P -2 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 16.11.2005 wherein the Court has held that it cannot direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure The facts in detail need not be noticed, in view of the short question of law that arises in the present petition.
(2.) AGGRIEVED against the action of State in filing challan against the Respondent for an offence under Section 306 IPC in FIR No. 59 dated 2.4.2005 instead of Sections 302/34 IPC., the Petitioner had filed CRM No. 32772 -M of 2005 seeking direction for ordering investigation of the case by some specialised agency like C.B.I. Notice of this petition was issued to the Respondent. However, this petition was disposed of on 20.9.2005 by this Court giving liberty to the Petitioner to move an application under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure and to raise all these pleas raised in the said petition. The order passed by this Court reads as under: Prayer in this petition is for the issuance of directions to get the FIR No. 59 dated 2.4.2005 police Station Sadar Raipura District Patiala investigated from a High Level Agency especially by C.B.I. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that in stead of presenting a challan under Sections 302/34 IPC, the prosecution has presented a challan under Sections 306/34 IPC and therefore, prays that the matter be got investigated from an independent agency. Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand submits that the challan has been presented. In case the Petitioner has any grievance, he may file an appropriate application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this view of the matter, counsel for the Petitioner prays that the present petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all the pleas raised herein by way of an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In case such an application is filed by the Petitioner the said application shall be considered and decided in accordance with law within a period of one month from date of its filing. Disposed of accordingly.
(3.) THE Petitioner, accordingly, moved an application dated 27.10.2005 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. While ignoring the order of this Court, the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala passed the impugned order on 16.11.2005, holding that it cannot direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure The Court, however, further held that prayer of the Petitioner for converting the offence into Section 302 IPC was to be decided at the time of framing of charge. Thereafter, the Court framed the charge against the Respondent on 8.2.2006, copy of which has been, annexed as Annexure P -3. As can be noticed, charge against the Respondent has only been framed under Section 306 IPC. It is thereafter, the Petitioner has filed the present petition impugning the order Annexure P -2 as well as the order Annexure P -3. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner, has referred to Full Bench decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Rajneesh Kumar Singhal v. The State (National Capital Territory of Delhi), : 2001 Cri. L.J. 1192. In this case the Full Bench has held that the Magistrate can direct police to make further investigation into the matter even after filing of a challan before it and even after taking of cognizance of offence. The counsel also refers to a decision of this Court in the case of Bachittar Singh v. State of Punjab,, 2001(1) 366, where similar view is taken. This was a case where the petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed for further investigation of the case. This Court observed that the Petitioner would have an alternative remedy under Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure to move an application before the trial Court giving sufficient cause for further investigation of the case and accordingly, the petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed. He then refers to a case of Popular Muthiah v. State represented by Inspector of Police,, 2006 (4) All India Cri LR (S.C.) 471, whereby marking reference to the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the Supreme Court has inter alia held that where police after investigation an offence, submitted a charge sheet, the Magistrate would have jurisdiction to direct re -investigation into the matter.;