VIRENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MITHLESH Chaudhary, J. Heard Sri Dilip Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA representing the State and Sri G. C. Saxena, learned Counsel representing respondent No. 2.

(2.) THE writ petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiroari quashing the FIR of case crime No. 18 of 2000 under Section 147, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Nanauta District Saharanpur as well as the order dated 21-7-2001 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Deobandh, District Saharanpur in case No. 133 of 2001, Sunita v. Virendra and others. A perusal of the impugned FIR prima facie indicates commission of cognizable offence and hence we are not persuaded to quash the same at this stage.

(3.) THE order passed by the learned Magistrate is also not sustainable due to the reasons that he has directed a particular officer to re-investigate the case. In Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2002 (1) JIC 31 (SC) : 2001 (43) ACC 570 at page 575, it has been laid down by the apex Court that it is not within the province of the Magistrate while exercising the power under Section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to specify any particular officer to conduct such investigation, not even to suggest the rank of the officer who should conduct such investigation. We, therefore, do not find any justification to quash the impugned FIR at this stage.