JASMOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the complaint of the second respondent, Police Station Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police (EOW) had registered first information report (FIR) No.71/2013 to investigate into the crimes allegedly committed under Sections 409/406/420/468/471/467/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The police concluded the investigation and submitted a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) dated 18.07.2014 seeking cancellation of the case against which the first informant lodged a protest petition. It appears the petitioner described as "proposed accused" also appeared with applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C. seeking initiation of certain criminal action.

(2.) The Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 24.09.2016, considered the cancellation report and issued directions for further investigation of the case declining to act on the applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

(3.) No appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. against the disposal of the applications under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been preferred. The petitioner approached the court of Sessions by criminal revision petition No.15/2018 to bring a challenge to the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate issuing directions for further investigation, taking exception, inter alia, on the ground that what had been ordered to be carried out was a fishing and roving inquiry or essentially a reinvestigation which was not permissible, the order being non-speaking and beyond the contours of the FIR. The revisional court, however, referred, inter alia, to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. W.N. Chadha, (1993) AIR SC 1082 to hold that a person who may turn out to be an accused in the case has no right of any say as regards the manner and method of investigation.