HUSSAIN ARIF Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party no. 3, the learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) THE instant petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the proceedings of Misc. Case No. 288 of 2002 pending in the court of IVth Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. THE opposite party no. 3 had lodged a first information report against the applicants, which was registered as case Crime No. 52 of 2002, under Section 392 I.P.C. police station Bajaria, district Kanpur Nagar. Later on the case was converted under Section 504 I.P.C.

(3.) I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The court below exercises his power under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. directing the police to further investigate the case if the investigation is found to be tainted or otherwise unfair or is necessary in the ends of justice. There is nothing in Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. to suggest that the court is obliged to here the accused before any such direction is made. During the stage of investigation the accused has no right of intervention as to the mode or manner of investigation. The prospective accused has no locus standi to challenge a direction for further investigation before cognizance or issuance of process against him and the police has statutory right to investigate the case, therefore, there is no illegality in the order rejecting the final report as the court below was dissatisfied by the investigation done by the Investigating Officer. In these circumstances the petition has no force and is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, is vacated. The Investigating Officer is directed to further investigate the case as directed by the court below and expeditiously submit its report as early as possible. However, during the pendency of the investigation no coercive steps shall be taken against the applicants.