LAWS(P&H)-2016-2-412

MANOJ BERI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Decided On February 04, 2016
Manoj Beri Appellant
V/S
State of Punjab and Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed under Section 482, Cr.P.C., for quashing of order dated 5.8.2013 (Annexure P-11), passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rupnagar (Duty), whereby the prayer of the prosecution for discharge of the petitioner, Manoj Beri, on the basis of the report submitted under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C., was declined. Mr. Akshay Bhan, learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner, submits that the investigating agency was within its jurisdiction to further investigate the matter as per Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. qua the petitioner, who was placed in Column No. 2, while filing the initial charge-sheet (challan) against the co-accused of the petitioner, He, while criticizing the impugned order, submitted that the finding of the learned Court below that the investigating agency had no jurisdiction to further investigate the matter, was absolutely contrary to the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, 2009 2 RCR(Cri) 570. He further submitted that from the first charge sheet (challan) presented against the co-accused of the petitioner and in the supplementary charge-sheet, after further investigation, presented with a prayer to discharge the petitioner, there is not an iota of word connecting him (petitioner) with the offences for which the FIR was registered, in that situation also the learned Magistrate should have discharged the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the State very fairly acceded to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the investigating agency was within its ambit to further investigate the matter as per Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. He further submitted that during investigation, conducted multiple times by the investigating agency, nothing incriminating had emerged against the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 though supported the view taken by learned Court below, but has not been able substantiate as to why the police could not further investigate the case.