UMA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By Ie petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE), petitioners are seeking quashing of the order taking cognizance on the supplementary challan In case FIR No.172/2000, under Sections 323/325/34 INDIAN PENAL CODE, P.S.Trilokpuri, East District, Delhi. Notice. Mr.Sharma accepts notice. Since the point Involved is short, I propose to dispose of the petition at this stage Itself.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioners submits that on 21/5/2000, Smt.Bimlesh Kumari, lodged report on the basis of which above noted case was registered. After investigation, challan was filed against Bishan Swaroop Sharma. Police investigated the matter further under Section 173 (8) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE and filed the supplementary challan, on the basis of which trial court took cognizance and summoned the petitioners. They appeared before the trial court and raised the objection that cognizance on the supplementary charge-sheet could not be taken as the permission of the trial court was not taken, to further investigate the matter. The plea was rejected vide orders dated 2/6/2001.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners vehemently argued that the further investigation made by the police was bad in law as no permission was taken from the trial court before launching further investigation; therefore cognizance- taken on the basis of such a supplementary charge-sheet is not sustainable. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Lal Narang and another Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1791, wherein it was held :-