VEDANT PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Supplementary-affidavit filed today is taken on record".

(2.) It is important to note here that in the case of Daya Shanker Singh v. State of U.P.,1988 25 AllCriC 270, it has been observed by this Court that Court is not bound to stay criminal trial in every case where further investigation is being conducted. In the case of Julfiqar Beg @ Baby v. State of U.P., 1992 CrLJ 2067, this Court relying upon the case of Daya Shanker Singh has observed that if after cognisance being taken by the Magistrate further investigation is carried out, the Magistrate is not bound to stay the proceeding of the case. It appears that these cases were not taken note by the bench deciding the case of Rakesh Kumar Srivastava .

(3.) In the instant case the learned counsel for the revisionists was confused to some extent with regard to the date of order taking cognisance in the case by the learned Magistrate. She vehemently argued that the order of further investigation was passed by Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi on 10.10.2013 (page 67 of the paper book) while the learned Magistrate has taken cognisance on the police charge-sheet vide order dated 17.10.2013. In fact the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi has directed further investigation of the case vide order dated 10.11.2013 and pursuant to this order the Investigating Officer has applied for return of case diary etc. to the Court on 18.11.2013. Thus it is quite clear that learned Magistrate has taken cognisance of the case against the revisionists prior to the order of further investigation passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi. The record further shows that Investigating Officer while submitting the charge-sheet against the revisionists has recorded the statement of Dr. G.D. Dwivedi who has specifically stated that injuries of Vikram Verma were serious and could have been fatal.