SOBARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran, J. Heard Sri J. S. Sengar, assisted by Sri R. N. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Satish Trivedi, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2, and learned AGA for the State, and perused the record.

(2.) THIS application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing charge-sheet No. 61-B of 1998, dated 25-8-1998, in Crime No. 80-B of 1991 under Sections 395, 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 506, 427, 452 IPS, PS Jaitpur, District Agra, and the consequent criminal proceedings arising out of the aforesaid case pending in the Court of Spl. Judge (DAA), Agra, in SST No. 23 of 2000, State v. Sobaran Singh and others. The aforesaid charge-sheet was submitted in consequence of an investigation conducted by the police of PS Jaitpur in pursuance of an order dated 6-2-1992, which was passed on an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. dated 4-2-1992.

(3.) SECONDLY, it was stated by the learned counsel for the applicants that earlier an application dated 9-1- 1992 was moved under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. by Dileep Kumar Dubey another son of opposite party No. 2, Ram Bharosey Dubey, which contained the same allegations. But in response to that application, the learned Spl. Judge (DAA), Agra, had passed an order on 18-1-1992 rejecting the application on the ground that certain formalities had not been completed, such as the applicant had not furnished particulars of opposite party No. 2, and that they had not showed that they had approached the police station of Jaitpur for lodging a report under Section 154 (1) Cr. P. C. or applied to the SSP under Section 154 (3) Cr. P. C. before moving the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. However in the present application dated 4-2-1992 1 find that the aforesaid steps have been complied with by opposite party No. 2. Even otherwise also, in my opinion, the Spl. Judge appears to have erred in earlier refusing to direct the investigation of the case on an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. by holding that it was a pre-condition that prior to such an order the applicant must approach the police station and also furnish the proof that he has applied to the SSP under Section 154 (3) Cr. P. C. I do not think that any such mandate is cast in law that such a procedure must necessarily be adopted before an order for registration and investigation of a case is passed under Section 156 (3 ). Be that as it may, after the investigation pursuant to the order of the learned Spl. Judge dated 6-2-1992 the charge-sheet, as mentioned hereinabove, has already been submitted. After the submission of the charge-sheet, even if there was any defect in the investigation, the same stood cured. This position has been affirmed in several decisions of the apex Court including the case of Prakash P. Hinduja v. UOI, AIR 2003 Supreme Court 2612. Thus, in paragraph 21 of the aforesaid law report, it has been observed that : "the Supreme Court in H. N. Rishbud has held that if cognizance is in fact taken on a police report initiated by the breach of mandatory provision relating to investigation, the result of the trial, which follows it, cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about a miscarriage of justice and that an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the Court for trial. Hence, even assuming for the sake of argument that CBI committed an error or illegality in submitting the charge-sheet without the approval of the CVC, the cognizance taken by the learned Spl. Judge on the basis of such a charge-sheet could not be set aside nor could further proceedings in pursuance thereof be quashed. "