PUSHKAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, a prayer is sought for quashing of further investigation contemplated in pursuance to FIR No. 85/2011. Learned counsel submits that after registration of FIR, investigation was made followed by charge sheet against other accused. The investigation against the petitioner was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. It has not been concluded, as yet, though trial against other accused has already been terminated with an order of conviction. The petitioner was tried to be arrested, thus moved bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer stated no new evidence against the petitioner. In view of the above, further investigation deserves to be quashed as charge sheet cannot be filed against the petitioner without further material. The other argument is regarding delay in making investigation by keeping it pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Once the original proceedings were terminated with conviction of other accused, the court becomes functus officio so as the IO, thus no investigation should be allowed further. It is moreso when it is grossly delayed.

(2.) I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.

(3.) An FIR was registered for offence under Section 302 IPC apart from other provisions of IPC. The investigation was conducted followed by charge sheet against other accused. They were convicted, as stated by learned counsel for petitioner. The question for my consideration is as to whether investigation can be kept pending against the petitioner after termination of the proceedings against the other accused. The answer of the aforesaid question is in negative. The termination of the proceedings is qua the accused against whom charge sheet was filed followed by trial and not for accused against whom, investigation was kept pending. The investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is not dependable on the trial against other accused for whom charge sheet had been filed. Mere termination of proceedings against other accused does not make 10 to be functus officio till the FIR is alive. The first argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner, thus cannot be accepted.