LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-130

AMAR NATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On July 11, 2014
AMAR NATH PANDEY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Amar Nath Pandey, S/o Baijnath Pandey has approached this Court with following prayers:

(2.) Brief background of the case as is emanating from the record of the writ petition is that a FIR was lodged, in reference of an incident alleged to have taken place on 18.10.2013 at about 13.05 hours by Ramakant Tiwari which was registered as Case Crime No. 255 of 2013 under Section 306, 506 and 120-B IPC Police Station- Chandauli district Chandauli against the petitioner as well as Gajanand Pandey @ Anand Pandey, who is son in law of Ramakant Tiwari. In the said criminal case, investigation has been carried out and thereafter Investigating Officer vide Parcha No. 6 dated 08.01.2014 concluded that petitioner was not involved in aforesaid crime in question and his complicity has not been found, and Investigating Officer further proceeded to find complicity of Gajanand Pandey @ Anand Pandey only and accordingly after completing the investigation, charge sheet in question has been filed on 08.01.2014 and same has been submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli on 21.03.2014 and the concerned court has taken cognizance of the same and allotted Case No. 123 of 2014 to the same. Record in question further reflects that case in question has been committed to the court of session and has been received before the court of session on 04.04.2014 and thereafter date has been fixed for framing of the charges on 03.05.2014 and thereafter what has further transpired before the Trial Court is not at all reflected from the record as has been set out before this Court.

(3.) In the present case record in question reflects that charge sheet in question has been filed in the court 08.01.2014 and prior to it on 24.12.2013 Superintendent of Police had written a letter pointing out defects in investigation, but before any further action could be taken pursuance to the said letter of Superintendent of Police, charge sheet had been filed on 08.01.2014, as against only one of the two named accused persons, and the Superintendent of Police once again sent letter dated 25.01.2014 and then again detailed investigation was made from complainant and witnesses, and the said investigation in question reflected that rightful approach in investigation was not there, qua the petitioner and thereafter on 30.01.2014 order has been passed by Circle Officer, Sadar, Chandauli respondent no. 3 in exercise its authority under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C asking for further investigation of the case in reference to the petitioner by getting call details of petitioner and the other co-accused who has been charge-sheeted, and the nature of talks interse, them and to find out details of transaction and specially how the sale consideration has been paid, and why death has taken place within 10 days from the date of transaction, and to find out co-relation in between the execution of sale deed and death of lady in question and now petitioner is before this Court questioning the validity of the aforesaid order.