SHESH NATH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed with a prayer for quashing the proceedings in S. T. No. 128 of 1989 under Sections 302 and 120 of the Railways Act now pending before the VIIth Addl. Sessions Judge at Deoria. It is stated that the applicant had moved an application for discharge on the ground that cognizance was illegally taken but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge had rejected the application and directed that charges be framed. Normally, an order framing charge is open to revision and an application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. is not ordinarily entertained in such cases. Learned counsel, however, submitted that he was not claiming a discharge on the basis of the materials on record, rather he was challenging the very basis of the prosecution initiated upon the charge-sheet.

(2.) The FIR in the instant case (case Crime No. 52, of 1986) was registered against the applicant on 7-4-86. An investigation was taken up by the GRPS, Bhatni. During such investigation, on 5-5-86, a radiogram was sent to the concerned police station by the S. P., C.B. C. I. D. to inform that further investigation in the case be entrusted to CBCID. Despite this information, the GRPS allegedly continued with the investigation and submitted a final report on 25-3-87. The final report, however, was not acted upon by the magistrate and no order was passed thereon.

(3.) It was alleged further that with the change of political power in the Government, certain political pressure was exerted upon the GRPS to file a charge-sheet and a charge-sheet was submitted on 2-11-1997 although there had been no order for a further investigation from the Court or from any higher-ups in the police hierarchy. The charge-sheet, however, did not indicate if it was a result of further investigation or re-investigation. This charge-sheet did not disclose the fact of submission of final report at an early stage. It was stated that the Court had acted mechanically without looking to the facts that investigation had been entrusted to the CBCID and that a final report had already been submitted by police. After taking cognizance the magistrate committed the case to the Court of session and an objection was taken before it regarding the legality of the charge-sheet. This objection, as aforesaid, was rejected on 25-6-98.