VINOD DUBEY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Criminal Misc. Petition is to the order dated 18th November, 2006, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 (North), Kota sent the case pertaining to FIR No.391/1992 registered al Police Station, Nayapura, Kota for reinvestigation again to SHO, Police Station, Nayapura, Kota.

(2.) Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that one FIR No.391/1992 came to be registered at Police Station Nayapura on 23rd September, 1992 at the behest of Lokendra Prasad Vashistha. The police of Nayapura Police Station, after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet against Vinod Dubey and Sanjay Dubey for the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code, but instead of taking cognizance of these offences and registering the case, the learned Judicial Magistrate sent it for re-investigation to Additional SP, CID (CB) Range Kota at the instance of complainant. Surprisingly, the Additional SP. CID (CB). Kota. after completion of investigation reversed the finding and gave the Final Report as no evidence was found to have appeared with regard to the commission of offences under Sections 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code against both the petitioners Vinod Dubey and Sanjay Dubey. Dissatisfied with the finding of Additional SP. CID (CB), Range Kota, the learned Judicial Magistrate again sent the case for reinvestigation to SHO, Police Station, Nayapura, Kota, who had conducted the investigation of this case earlier also.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners canvassed that the Hon'ble Apex Court has consistently held in plethora of cases that the Magistrate having jurisdiction could not send the case for reinvestigation, of course the case could be sent for further investigation on some specific issues. In the instant case, the learned Judicial Magistrate, not only sent the case back for reinvestigation, but issued specific directions as to in what manner the investigation was to be conducted, which is contrary to the settled proposition of law. In view of this legal position, the impugned order, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate sent the case back for reinvestigation second time deserves to be set aside.