SANAUAL HAQUE Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision has been filed by Sanaul Haque with a prayer to quash the order dated 5-5-2007 passed by the learned Additional C.J.M. Court No. 1 Bijnor whereby the learned C.J.M. has passed the judicial remand under S.326 IPC also in Case Crime No. 425 of 2007 P.S. Nethor, district Bijnor.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that in the present case the F.I.R. has been registered against the revisionist and three other coaccused persons on 25-4-2007 at 2.10 p.m. in case crime No. 425 of 2007 under S.452, 326, 323, 504, 506 IPC P. S. Nathor, district Bijnor. During investigation the I. O. of this case prayed for granting judicial remand for the offence punishable under S.325, 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C., but the same was opposed by the prosecution and the first informant of this case by submitting that in the present case, F.I.R. has been registered under S.326 IPC also and on the basis of medical examination report, tooth of the left lower 6th tooth i.e. 1st molar of the injured Smt. Ibrat Jahan was missing there. The injury was kept under observation and advised for x ray. In the supplementary medical examination report, it was found that the first molar of left lower was missing from the socket and the injury was found grievous in nature but to extend an undue benefit to the accused, the I.O. has not sought remand for the offence punishable under S.326 IPC only because it was a non bailable offence whereas the remaining offence were punishable under S.325, 323, 504, 506 IPC were bailable considering the same the learned Additional C.J.M. Court No. 1 Bijnor, who perused the record, came to the conclusion that a prima facie offence punishable under S.326, 325, 323, 504 and 506 IPC is made out and the applicant was taken to judicial custody and send to district jail Bijnor on 5-5-2007, being aggrieved from the order dated 5-5-2007 the revisionist has preferred this revision.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that according to the provision of S.167 CrPC, the Magistrate has been authorised for the detention of the accused person in the custody, for the same the remand of the accused either to judicial custody or the police custody is passed by the learned Magistrate at the request of the Investigating Officer. It is settled law that at the stage of investigation the Magistrate has no right to interfere with the investigation of the case, but in the present case, the I.O. came to the conclusion that the only offence under S.325, 323, 504 and 506 IPC is made out for the same offence the prayer for passing remand was made but the learned Magistrate concerned passed the judicial remand under S.326 IPC also, it amounts the interference in the investigation vestigation of a criminal case by the Magistrate concerned which is illegal, because the learned Magistrate has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the impugned order in support of this contention the learned counsel for the revisionist cited a case of Chhatrapal Singh and others v. State of U.P., (2) A.A.R. 56A (H.C.) of this Hon'ble Court, in which Hon'ble Single Judge held that "Judicial Magistrate has exceeded his jurisdiction by recording the observation of the investigation stage, it amounts interference with the investigation."