Smt. Archana Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 12 Others

ORDER The applicant's application in the above matter is allowed in the manner that said matter is being sent for further investigation, without any unnecessary delay, as per the provisions of law, to the concerned office is directed to make necessary compliance, accordingly." In compliance of the order dated 26.08.2021 the I.O. carried out further investigation and during further investigation statement of injured/witness namely Pradeep Kumar Singh, Amit Singh, Dilip, Amar Bahadur Yadav, Ankit, Kunwar Bahadur, Lachna and Jagdish were recorded. The medical report(s) of the injured(s) namely Pradeep Kumar Singh, Amit Singh, Dilip, Amar Bahadur Yadav, Ankit, Kunwar Bahadur, Lachna and Jagdish were also collected. Thereafter the same were placed on record alongwith the supplementary charge sheet. The injury report(s) of injured Amar Bahadur and Kunwar Bahdaur indicate that they suffered fracture in Shaft of Lt. Fibula and Shaft of Lt. Ulna, respectively. In the supplementary charge sheet Section 307 IPC was not added and after submission of supplementary charge sheet the applicant again moved the application in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. praying therein for further investigation. This application of the applicant was rejected by the Magistrate vide order dated 13.04.2023. The relevant portion of the order dated 13.04.2023 is extracted hereinunder:- "On perusal of the file it is seen and found that wide order dated 26.08.2021, passed by this Court on the Application of Informant Archana, the matter was referred for further investigation without any unnecessary delay to conduct wholesome investigation taking into account the version of direct and injured wimesses, as well. This further investigation was ordered before taking cognisance of the said matter. After conducting further investigation, Supplementary Case Diary (SCD) has been filed by Police Station Baldirai. In the SCD the statements of injured/witnesses like Pradeep, Amit Singh, Dilip, Amar Bahadur, Ankit, Kunwar Bahadur are recorded. Statements of direct witnesses like Lachna Singh and Jagdish are also taken down in investigation. In the concluding portion of SCD Paper 10, it is stated that injured .....was not done in District Jail, Sultanpur and medical reports of said injured have been already included and mentioned in Case Diary, Medial Reports of said injured namely Pradeep Kumar Singh, Amar Bahadur, Ankit, Kunwar and Dilip are filed as part of previously filed Case Diary, along with other papers. On due perusal, it is seen that the said injury reports mention the object/weapon of alleged attack happens to be hard and blunt object' in the column of medical opinion. Reports doesn't mention the use of any sharp object or weapon. Further, after X-Ray, it is endorsed on the medical reports that none of the injured has suffered any head fracture. Two injured namely Amar Bahadur and Kunwar have suffered fracture in Shaft of Lt. Fibula and Shaft of Lt. Ulna, respectively. Apart from this, it is equally pertinent to mention over bere that on perusal of statement of injured Amar Bahadur, on SCD 05, it is seen that he has not mentioned or stated about snatching of his mobile by Accuseds during the alleged incident as stated in F.I.R. by the Informant Archana. Thus, from all these above-discussed facts and evidences gathered during course of further investigation, which was done in pursuance of the earlier existing investigation, it is seen that there are ample and sufficient grounds to take cognisance of the matter against the named Accuseds under the relevant Sections mentioned in chargesheet. There is no ground to alter any other Section as prayed by Informant in said Application. It is not out of place to mention over here that cognisance is not being taken of Section 188 I.P.C. and Section 3 Epidemic Act, 1879 as the information of the alleged offence is not received by means of written complaint filed by public servant." Being aggrieved, applicant preferred the Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2024 (Smt. Archana Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others) and the Revisional Court rejected/dismissed the said revision vide order dated 03.06.2024. The relevant portion of the order dated 03.06.2024 extracted hereinunder:- "7-i=koyh ij miyC/k izi=ksa ds voyksdu ls ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd fuxjkuh@okfnuh eqdnek }kjk foi{kh lati 2 yxk;r 13@vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) Fkkuk&cYnhjk; tuin&lqyrkuiqj esa eqtivtilati&129@2020 varxZr /kkjk&147] 148] 149] 307] 504] 435] 395] 188] 269 Hkktinatilati o /kkjk&3 egkekjh vf/kfu;e iathd`r djk;k x;k] ftlesa foospd }kjk foospuksijkUr foi{kh lati 2 yxk;r 13@vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) lk{; laxzfgr djrs gq, muds fo:) vkjksi i= varxZr /kkjk&147] 148] 149] 323] 325] 504] 506] 188] 269 Hkktinatilati o /kkjk&3 egkekjh vf/kfu;e U;k;ky; esa izsf"kr fd;k x;kA laKku ds Lrj ij fuxjkuhd=h@okfnuh eqdnek }kjk eftLVªsV U;k;ky; ds le{k] foospukf/kdkjh dh foospuk ls lUrq"V u gksdj vfxze foospuk djk;s tkus gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftl ij lquokbZ djrs gq, fo}ku eftLVªsV U;k;ky; }kjk fnti 26-08-2021 dks fuxjkuhd=h@okfnuh eqdnek dk mijksDr izkFkZuk i= Lohdkj fd;k x;k RkFkk izdj.k esa fcuk fdlh foyEc ds vfxze foospuk djk;s tkus gsrq vknsf'kr fd;k x;kA mDr vkns'k fnukafdr 26-08-2021 ds vuqikyu esa iqfyl ds foospukf/kdkjh }kjk izdj.k dh vfxze foospuk djrs gq, foi{kh lati 2 yxk;r 13@vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo:) vkjksi i= varxZr /kkjk&147] 148] 149] 323] 325] 504] 506] 188] 269 Hkktinatilati o /kkjk&3 egkekjh vf/kfu;e e; ijd dsl Mk;jh U;k;ky; esa izsf"kr fd;k x;kA iqu% laKku ds Lrj ij fuxjkuhd=h@okfnuh eqdnek }kjk izkFkZuk i= okLrs djk;s tkus vfxze foospuk eftLV

ª sV U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftl

ij lquokbZ djrs gq, fo}ku eftLV

ª sV U;k;ky; }kjk mDr izkFkZuk

i= okLrs djk;s tkus vfxze foospuk dks fujLr djrs gq, foi{kh lati 2 yxk;r 13 @vfHk;qDrx.k t;dju] egUFk] lqHkk"k] jksfgr] izeksn] nku flag] tequk] eukst] ctjaxh] vafdr] egs'k iq= bUnj] egs'k iq= vkuUn izdk'k ds fo:) /kkjk& 147] 148] 148] 323] 325] 504] 506] 269 Hkktinatilati ds varxZr izlaKku fy;k gSA 8-i=koyh ij miyC/k iwjd dsl Mk;jh ds voyksdu ls ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd eftLVªsV U;k;ky; }kjk iwoZ esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukafdr 26-08-2021 ds vuqikyu esa vfxze foospuk ds nkSjku foospukf/kdkjh }kjk pksVfgy lk{khx.k iznhi] vfer flag] fnyhi] vej cgknqj] vafdr] dqaoj cgknqj rFkk lk{khx.k ypuk flag o txnh'k ds c;ku ntZ fd;s x;sA i=koyh ij miyC/k pksVfgyksa dh vk?kkr vk[;kvksa esa fpfdRld }kjk viuh jk; esa pksVksa dks /kkjnkj gfFk;kj vFkok fdlh vU; ?kkrd gfFk;kj ls vkuk ugha crk;k x;k gS] cfYd pksVksa dks dqUnky; ls vkuk crk;k x;k gSA blh izdkj ,Dl&js fjiksVZ esa Hkh flj tSls eeZ LFky esa fdlh izdkj dh dkbZ VwV&QwV@QSzDpj ik;s tkus dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij gh fo}ku eftLVªsV U;k;ky; }kjk foi{kh lati 2 yxk;r 13@vfHk;qDrx.k t;dju] egUFk] lqHkk"k] jksfgr] izeksn] nku flag] tequk] eukst] ctjaxh] vafdr] egs'k iq= bUnj] egs'k iq= vkuUn izdk'k ds fo:) /kkjk&147] 148] 148] 323] 325] 504] 506] 269 Hkktinatilati ds varxZr laKku fy;k gSA 9-fof/k dk ;g lqLFkkfir fl)kUr gS fd eftLVªsV U;k;ky;] iqfyl }kjk nkf[ky fd;s x;s vkjksi i= vFkok vafre vk[;k ls ck/; ugha gSA ;fn eftLVªsV U;k;ky; dks ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd ftu vijk/k ds fy, vkjksi i= fdlh vfHk;qDr ds fo:) nkf[ky ugha fd;k x;k gS ,oa i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa ,oa lkefxz;ksa ls izFke n`"V;k mDr vijk/k l`ftr gksuk ik;k tkrk gS] ,slh n'kk esa mu vijk/kksa ds ckcr~ U;k;ky; }kjk vkjksi fojpu ds Lrj ij vFkok fopkj.k ds fdlh Hkh Lrj ij vkjksi fojfpr fd;k tk ldrk gS ,oa fopkj.k U;k;ky; ,slk djus ds fy;s Lora= gSA 10-mijksDr ds vfrfjDr ;fn fuxjkuhd=h ds ikl fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ lk{; vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa miyC/k gS rks fuxjkuhd=h fu'p; gh mDr lk{; dks U;k;ky; esa mfpr Lrj ij izLrqr dj ldrh gS vFkok vkjksi fojpu ds le; Hkh mDr fcUnq ij l{ke U;k;ky; ds le{k viuk i{k izLrqr dj ldrh gSA eftLVªsV U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fd;s x;s vk{ksfir vkns'k] ftlds }kjk eftLVªsV U;k;ky; us i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{;ksa@lkefxz;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fuxjkuhd=h@okfnuh eqdnek ds izkFkZuk i= okLrs djk;s tkus vfxze foospuk dks fujLr djrs gq, foi{kh lati 2 yxk;r 13@vfHk;qDrx.k t;dju] egUFk] lqHkk"k] jksfgr] izeksn] nku flag] tequk] eukst] ctjaxh] vafdr] egs'k iq= bUnj] egs'k iq= vkuUn izdk'k ds fo:) /kkjk&147] 148] 148] 323] 325] 504] 506] 269 Hkktinatilati ds varxZr izlaKku fy;k gS] esa fdlh izdkj dh fof/kd =qfV ugha ik;h tkrh gSA 11-bl izdkj mijksDr foospuk ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd fo}ku eftLVªsV U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir vkns'k fof/klEer gS rFkk mDr vkns'k esa fdlh izdkj ds gLr{ksi dh dksbZ vko';drk ugha gSA fuxjkuhd=h ds fo}ku vf/koDrk }kjk izLrqr rdZ xzkg~; ;ksX; ugha gSa rFkk foi{khx.k ds rdZ xzkg~; ;ksX; gSaA rnuqlkj fuxjkuhd=h dh vksj ls izLrqr fuxjkuh fujLr fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA vkns'k fuxjkuhd=h dh vksj ls izLrqr nkf.Md fuxjkuh fujLr dh tkrh gSA bl fu.kZ; dh izfr lEcfU/kr fopkj.k U;k;ky; dks izsf"kr dh tk,A i=koyh fu;ekuqlkj lafpr vfHkys[kkxkj gksA" In the aforesaid background of the case, present application has been filed. Impeaching the impugned order(s), it is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that in the FIR specific allegations were levelled to attract offence under Section 307 IPC and to that effect Pradeep Kumar Singh sustained injury and despite the same, the charge sheet was not filed under Section 307 IPC and at relevant point of time certain documents including medical reports were not obtained from the concerned hospital and therefore the application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was preferred which was allowed vide order dated 26.08.2021 and in subsequent investigation in compliance of the order of the trial Court dated 26.08.2021 the I.O. has not collected material evidence and as such further investigation is required in the matter and being so both the orders are liable to be interfered with by this Court. Learned AGA Sri Niramal Kumar Pandey stated that the I.O. has already concluded entire investigation by reducing the statement of witnesses in writing including the statements of injured witnesses and collecting the material/evidence and the same have been placed on record of the court concerned and as such at this stage no further investigation is required in the matter. Prayer is to dismiss the application. Considered the aforesaid and perused the record. The subject matter in this case relates to re-investigation/further investigation, as prayed, in the instant application, and accordingly, it would be apt to refer expression "investigation" which is defined in Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C.:- "investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf;" Regarding expression "investigation", it would be appropriate to refer para(s) 53 to 55 of the judgment passed in the case of Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 569, which are extracted hereinunder:- "53. The Code vide Chapter XII, ranging from Section 154 to Section 176, deals with information to the Police and their power to investigate. Section 154 deals with the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and fiats the procedure to be adopted when prima facie commission of a cognizable offence is made out. Section 156 authorises a police officer in-charge of a Police station to investigate any cognizable offence without the order of a Magistrate. Sub-section (3) of Section 156 provides for any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 to order an investigation as mentioned in Section 156(1). In cases where a cognizable offence is suspected to have been committed, the officer in-charge of the Police station, after sending a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence, is entitled under Section 157 to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and also to take steps for discovery and arrest of the offender. Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1) to Section 157 give discretion to the officer in-charge not to investigate a case, when information of such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of serious nature; or when it appears to the officer in-charge of the Police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering the investigation. In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) to the proviso to sub-section (1) to Section 157, the officer in-charge of the Police station has to file a report giving reasons for not complying with the requirements of sub-section

(1) and in a case covered by clause (b) to the proviso, also notify the informant that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated. Section 159 gives power to a Magistrate, on receiving such report of the officer in-charge, to either direct an investigation or if he thinks fit, proceed to hold a preliminary inquiry himself or through a Magistrate subordinate to him, or otherwise dispose of the case in the manner provided by the Code.

¶54Sections 160 to 164 deal with the power of the Police to require attendance of witnesses, examination of witnesses, use of such statements in evidence, inducement for recording statement and recording of statements. Section 165 deals with the power of a Police officer to conduct search during investigation in the circumstances mentioned therein.

¶55The power under the Code to investigate generally consists of following steps : (a) proceeding to the spot;

(b) ascertainment of facts and circumstances of the case; (c) discovery and arrest of the suspected offender; (d) collection of evidence relating to commission of offence, which may consist of examination of various persons, including the person accused, and reduction of the statement into writing if the officer thinks fit; (e) the search of places of seizure of things considered necessary for investigation and to be produced for trial; and (f) formation of opinion as to whether on the material collected there is a case to place the accused before the Magistrate for trial and if so, taking the necessary steps by filing a chargesheet under Section 173." In the instant case, from the documents placed on record including the orders impugned, it is apparent that I.O. has collected all the material/evidence which is prime concern of I.O. viz. reducing the statement(s) of witnesses of prosecution including injured/witnesses namely Pradeep Kumar Singh, Amit Singh, Dilip, Amar Bahadur Yadav, Ankit, Kunwar Bahadur, Lachna and Jagdish and also the medical report(s) of all the injured persons. In view of aforesaid as also the law on the issue this Court is of the view that the I.O. has completed the investigation and accordingly finds no force in the present application. It is therefore dismissed. Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Vinay/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Court No. - 13 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7081 of 2024 Applicant :- Smt. Archana Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 12 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sudhakar Mishra,Vivek Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA appearing for the State and perused the record. Present application has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned order dated 03.06.2024 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (in short "Revisional Court"), Sultanpur in Criminal Revision No. 23 of 2024 (Smt. Archana Devi vs. State of U.P. and Others) and the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the A.C.J.M. (in short "Magistrate"), Room No. 19, Sultanpur in Case Crime No. 129 of 2020 under Section 397 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 1114 of 2023, arising out of Case Crime No. 129 of 2020. The submission of learned counsel for the applicant, in nutshell, is to the effect that an FIR No. 0129 of 2020 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 435, 395, 188, 269 and Section 3 of Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 was lodged at P.S.- Baldirai, District-Sultanpur. Thereafter, Investigating Officer (in short "I.O.") after completion of investigation submitted the charge sheet upon which cognizance was taken by the court concerned on 13.04.2023. Prior to taking cognizance on the charge sheet No. 01 an application was preferred by the applicant in terms of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. praying therein to direct the I.O. to carry out further investigation. The trial Court upon due consideration of the facts of the case vide order dated 26.08.2021 allowed the said application and directed the I.O. to carry out further investigation. The order dated 26.08.2021 reads as under:- "The application for hearing before taking cognizance in the matter case crime No. 129/2020, U/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 435, 395, 188, 269, I.P.C. and section 3 Epidemic Act, P/s Baldirai, District Sultanpur, presented called learned counsel of applicant/ informant Archana Devi is present along with learned Assistant Prosecution officer (A.P.O). The said application is presented by the applicant mainly stating that the Investigation in the above matter has not been done properly and thoroughly. The evidence and statement pertaining to injureds and crucial witnesses have not been taken down in the investigation. As such, prayer is made to direct further investigation in the said matter. The said application is duly forwarded and submitted by the Ld. APO. Heard and Perused the file and papers. The file is at the stage of cognizance taking as chargsheet and accompanying papers and documents relating to investigation hs been filed U/s 173 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C.) on perusal of chargsheet along with case diary details, it can be apparently seen that the investigation conducted in the above matter has not touched all aspects and fact...... including direct witnesses of the matter and those inured. Taking these circumstances into account in right of section 173(8) Cr. P.C. and being guided by judicial decision Hasan Bhai Vali Bhai Qureshi Vs State of Gujarat and others on 5th April 2024, Case No. Appeal (Crl) 421 of 2004, it seems apt and proper to send the matter for further investigation before taking cognizance. On above analysis and in interest of justice. It seems just to allow the application in the manner as shown below.