(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 15.1.2003 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Danapur in Bihta P.S. Case No. 59 of 2002, whereby he had disagreed with the conclusion of the Investigating Officer, took cognizance of the offence and directed for issuance of process against the petitioners.
(2.) ON the basis of a report given to the police, Bihta P.S. Case No. 59 of 2002 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 120. -B of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners besides other accused persons. The police, after investigation, had submitted charge -sheet under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act against two persons and rest of the accused persons named in the first information report including the petitioners were not sent up for trial. The final form submitted by the Investigating Officer was placed for consideration before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and by order dated 14.11.2002, he directed the Investigating Officer to further investigate the case and record the statements of some of the witnesses named in the said order which according to the protest petition filed by the informant, were not being examined by the Investigating Officer. The statement of those witnesses were recorded and submitted before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate taking into account the material collected during the course of investigation, differed with the conclusion of the Investigating Officer, took cognizance of the offence and directed for issuance of process against the petitioners.
(3.) IT is well settled that the learned Magistrate, while considering the final form, is not bound to accept the conclusion of the Investigating Officer and one of the options to him is to direct for further investigation. Merely, the fact that he had directed for recording the statements of some of the witnesses, in my opinion, shall not amount to interfering with the investigation by the police.