SYED MAUJOOD AHMED Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Sri K.C. Vishwakarma, Advocate has filed counter-affidavit on behalf of opposite party No. 2, complainant, who is Junior Engineer (Mechanical) at E/M Division P.W.D., Allahabad. Rejoinder- affidavit has also been filed and the application is listed for final hearing.

(2.) THIS application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed invoking inherent jurisdiction for quashing the charge-sheet No. 4/97 dated 22-1-1997 and also the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance on the basis of the aforesaid charge-sheet in case No. 16 of 1997. The First Information Report was registered at case Crime No. 486 of 1981, under Sections 409, 406 I.P.C., Police Station Daraganj, District Allahabad, on the basis of which the present applicant, who is Government servant and posted as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) at E/M Division P.W.D., Allahabad, is being prosecuted.

(3.) THE main argument on behalf of the applicant is that the Magistrate could not take cognizance after submission of the subsequent charge-sheet on the basis of the investigation carried out by the C.B.C.I.D. in respect of the same offence, regarding which final report was accepted by the Magistrate as far back as 6-10-1983. It has been emphasized that assuming there were certain discrepancies and the investigation was to be changed after acceptance of the final report, even then the matter could not be re-investigated unless permission was sought by the Magistrate, the procedure laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code could not be ignored. Section 173(8) Cr. P.C. is the only provision which permits further investigation. There is nothing which can empower the Investigation Agency to carry out endless investigation by one or the other Investigating Agency.