GOBARDHAN DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 482, Cr. P. C. assailing reopening of the investigation by the Investigating Officer in G. R. Case No. 113 of 1998 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Dhenkanal after submission of the charge-sheet.

(2.) The short fact of the case is that on the basis of an F.I.R., Dhenkanal Sadar P. S. Case No. 42 of 1998 was registered under Sections 147/148/354/323/294/307 read with Section 149, I.P.C. Subsequently, the case turned to one under Section 382, I.P.C. and G.R. Case No. 113 of 1998 was registered. The Investigating Officer after conducting the investigation and regarding the statements of the eye-witnesses and other witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P. C. submitted a charge-sheet on 1-6-98 before the learned Magistrate against 24 accused persons citing 33 persons as charge-sheet witnesses. On 24-6-98, the learned S.D.J.M. took cognizance of the offence under Sections 147/148/366/364/323/382 read with 149, I.P.C. and (sic) were issued against the absconders. The Inspector of Police, after cognizance was taken, intimated the Court that as per the direction of the Superintendent of Police, Dhankanal he has reopened the investigation and further investigation was taken up and he forwarded another accused-petitioner in connection with the said case and the Court was intimated that the charge-sheet would be submitted. Later this intimation has been reflected in the later order of the Magistrate dated 24-6-1998. As against this reopening of investigation/further interrogation, the petitioner had approached this Court and prays for quashing the same.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that after submission of the charge-sheet and when the cognizance is taken by the learned Magistrate, if the Investigating Officer intends to further investigate the matter, he needs prior permission from the Court under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called on "the Code"). It is the further admission that once the report is accepted by the Magistrate and cognizance is taken, it becomes a judicial order and hence the Investigating Officer in the garb of further investigation is not authorised to interfere with the judicial proceeding and in other words, it amounts to interference with the judicial proceedings. It is further submitted that there is no positive material, which prompted the Superintendent of Police to direct reopening of the case and the same was on an obliquemotive to harass the petitioner and to help the informant, which otherwise will amount to interference with the judicial proceeding. The learned counsel has referred to the decision Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.), reported in AIR 1979 SC 1791 : (1979 Cri LJ 1346) in support of his contention that reopening of investigation needs prior permission from the learned Court below. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision in Surendra Sahoo v. State of Orissa, (1994) 7 OCR 139 and Chandrasekhar Mohanty v. State, (1993) 6 OCR 386 : (1993 Cri LJ 3052).