Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Chander Bhusan Barowalia JUDGMENT
Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.
1. The present petition is maintained by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter to be called as "the Code") for reinvestigation in the FIR No. 66/2016 dated 21.3.2016, under Sections 341, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code as well FIR No. 97/2016, dated 18.4.2016, under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, both registered at Police Station, Sadar, District Bilaspur and also for quashing the investigation in the aforesaid FIRs.
2. Briefly stating the facts, giving rise to the present petition are that on 20.3.2016, at about 10:30 PM, when the petitioner alongwith his friends were coming back from the Nalwari fair night function and when reached at the workshop of his father. They parked their motorcycle at the workshop, a car bearing No. HP24D-0553 came and stopped near the workshop and three persons, namely, Nishant Dabra, Ajay Singh and Anup Sharma, alighted from the car and asked the petitioner and his friends to disclose their names. On the intervention of the petitioner, Nishant Dabra, alongwith other two started beating the petitioner with fist and kick blows and friends of the petitioner tried to save him, but they were not stopped and continued to beat the petitioner, blood started oozing out from the face, mouth and other part of the petitioner's body, but the aforesaid persons did not stop here and continued beatings to the petitioner in a brutal manner. The sister-in-law (bhabi) of the petitioner came out of the house and intervened in the matter and the petitioner was saved from the clutches of respondents No. 5 to 7. Respondents No. 5 to 7 again threatened the petitioner that they will eliminate the petitioner, if they will meet him again. The condition of the petitioner became very critical and blood started oozing out from the nose and mouth and he was taken to the Government Hospital, Bilaspur and complaint regarding the aforesaid incident was lodged telephonically with Police Station, Bilaspur. Thereafter, the petitioner remained admitted in the hospital for four days and medical examination of the petitioner was done and x-ray of nasal bone was done and doctor opined that there was grievous injury on his person. Nishant Dabra-respondent No. 5, who has given beatings to the petitioner, is a policeman and also influential person. Respondents No. 5 to 7 influenced the investigation and no fair investigation was done in the matter. The petitioner written a letter to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Mandi, for taking action against Nishant Dabra, who is posted at Vigilance Department at Bilaspur, with a request that he should not to interfere in the investigation. During the course of investigation, petitioner requested respondent No. 3 that there is a fracture in the nasal bone, as per the x-ray taken from the private x-ray centre and also requested to send the x-ray for opinion, but respondent No. 3 did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.
3. Mr. B.S. Chauhan, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the investigation in this case is not conducted in a fair manner and the investigation so carried out to benefit to the respondents. He has argued that the investigation was conducted by same Investigating Officer, but with different results. He has further argued that the improvements in the prosecution story with regard to the weapon of offence from knife to dragger also show that it was malafide. He has also taken into consideration the fact that the x-ray of the petitioner was conducted by the private hospital which also shows that there was grievous injuries on his nose i.e. fracture on the nasal bone, but the case is registered only under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code against respondents No. 5 to 7. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment in Hon'ble Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and others, MANU/SC/1101/2012 : 2013 (5) Supreme Court cases 762, on this aspect.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the investigation is conducted in a very fair manner and the case is made out against the petitioner for an offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, as well FIR was registered and FIR No. 66 of 2016, which was registered by the petitioner against respondents No. 5 to 7, case was made out under Sections 341, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 5 to 7 has argued that there was no fracture on the person of the petitioner and there was no external injury on his person, when he was examined in the hospital by the Medical Officer. Even if, in the x-ray and CT scan of nose, no injuries came, but after ten days, he procured the x-ray in a private clinic, which shows that there was fracture on the nasal bone, which is procured in the document and on that basis, he has moved before this Court. He has further argued that there was no improvement with regard to the weapon of offence, as it was mentioned as a sharp edged weapon i.e. dragger and the same was recovered by the police, which was used by the petitioner in the commission of offence. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon the judgment in case titled Kulveer Singh v. State of U.P through Principal Secretary, Home and others, Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
6. In rebuttal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the present is a case, where reinvestigation is required to be done, as per the law settled by the different Courts.
7. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail.
8. The factual matrix of the case is as follows:
"As per the prosecution case, that on 21.3.2016, the petitioner had gone to the Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, for treatment on account of the alleged beatings by respondents No. 5 to 7. On receipt of the information from Regional Hospital, Bilaspur, Head Constable Hem Raj, was sent from Police Post, City Bilaspur to Regional Hospital, Bilaspur and thereafter, the application was moved for conducting medical examination and MLC was obtained. Thereafter, the statement of Ajay Kumar was recorded, who was accompanying the petitioner and FIR No. 66 of 2016 dated 21.3.2016, under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Sadar. Respondent No. 6 put his appearance before respondent No. 2 and submitted a written complaint before him. The complaint was sent to Police Post City, Bilaspur, for appropriate action. After entering the complaint in the daily diary, respondents No. 5 to 7 were produced before the Medical Officer, Bilaspur and MLCs were obtained and on receipt of opinion of the Radiologist in X-rays on 18.4.2016, FIR No. 97/2016, dated 18.4.2016, under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at Police Station, Sadar, Bilaspur, against the petitioner. Later on, Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code were added in the case and challan under Sections 325, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, was presented before the learned Court below. On account of the receipt of MLC and final opinion of Medical Officer on the MLC of petitioner, the nature of injury was found to be simple. As such, the investigation of the case was carried in offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation of FIR No. 66 of 2016 was conducted by Sub Inspector Yog Raj, Police Station, Sadar. The investigation in both cases has been carried out by the Investigating Officer on the basis of ocular as well as expert evidences. No favoritism or undue influence has been exercised by either of the Investigating Officer in both the cases and after completion of investigation, the challan has been presented before the learned Court below."
9. In the present case, FIR was registered by the present petitioner against respondents No. 5 to 7 i.e. FIR No. 66 of 2016, dated 21.3.2016 under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as there was no visible grievous injuries on the person of the petitioner. Even if, after the medical examination, no grievous injuries came. FIR being registered by the private respondent due to the fracture on the arm of one of the respondent. The FIR against the petitioner was registered, under Sections 341, 323, 325, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
10. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Piara Singh and others v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0119/1977 : AIR 1977, Supreme Court, 2274. Relevant para-6 of the judgment (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:
"We find ourselves in complete agreement with the observations made by the Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid case and hold that where the opinion of a medical witness is contradicted by another medical witness both of whom are equally competent to form an opinion the opinion of that expert should be accepted which supports the direct evidence in the case. Apart from this, in the instant case it appears that Dr. Jatinder Singh had the initial advantage of examining the deceased and holding his post-mortem and observing the nature of the injuries on the body of the deceased. His opinion is therefore based on firsthand knowledge and would be in any event preferable to Dr. Paramjit Singh who did not have the advantage of seeing the deceased or the injuries on his body but deposed purely on the basis of the description of the injuries given by Dr. Jatinder Singh. For all these reasons therefore we would prefer the evidence of Dr. Jatinder Singh to the evidence of Dr. Paramjit Singh."
11. In another case titled Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna and another MANU/SC/1296/2009 : 2009 (7) Supreme Court Cases 685. It is gainful to reproduce para-15 of the judgment (supra), which is as under:
"An order of further investigation can be made at various stages including the stage of the trial, that is, after taking cognizance of the offence. Although some decisions have been referred to us, we need not dilate thereupon as the matter has recently been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat in the following terms :(SCC pp. 336-37, paras 12-13)
"12. This Court while passing the order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India did not direct reinvestigation. This Court exercised its jurisdiction which was within the realm of the Code. Indisputably the investigating agency in terms of subsection (8) of Section 173 of the Code can pray before the Court and may be granted permission to investigate into the matter further. There are, however, certain situations, where such a formal request may not be insisted upon.
13. It is, however, beyond any cavil that 'further investigation' and 'reinvestigation' stand on different footing. It may be that in a given situation a superior court in exercise of its constitutional power, namely, under Articles 226 and 32 of the Constitution of India could direct a 'State' to get an offence investigated and/or further investigated by a different agency. Direction of a reinvestigation, however, being forbidden in law, no superior court would ordinarily issue such a direction. Pasayat, J. in Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar, opined as under : (SCC p.415, para 7)
'7. At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of Section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigate under sub-section (8), but not fresh investigation or reinvestigation.'
We have referred to the aforementioned decision only because Mr. Tulsi contends that in effect and substance the prayer of the appellant before the learned Magistrate was for reinvestigation but the learned Magistrate had directed further investigation by the investigating officer inadvertently."
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and others, MANU/SC/1101/2012 : 2013 (5) Supreme Court cases 762, wherein it has been held as under:
"20. Having noticed the provisions and relevant part of the scheme of the Code, now we must examine the powers of the court to direct investigation. Investigation can be ordered in varied forms and at different stages. Right at the initial stage of receiving the FIR or a complaint, the court can direct investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the Code. Investigation can be of the following kinds:
(i) Initial investigation,
(ii) Further investigation,
(iii) Fresh or de novo or reinvestigation.
48. What ultimately is the aim or significance of the expression "fair and proper investigation" in criminal jurisprudence? It has a twin purpose : Firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law; secondly, the entire emphasis on a fair investigation has to be to bring out the truth of the case before the court of competent jurisdiction. Once these twin paradigms of fair investigation are satisfied, there will be the least requirement for the court of law to interfere with the investigation, much less quash the same or transfer it to another agency. Bringing out the truth by fair and investigative means in accordance with law would essentially repel the very basis of an unfair, tainted investigation or cases of false implication. Thus, it is inevitable for a court of law to pass a specific order as to the fate of the investigation, which in its opinion is unfair, tainted and in violation of the settled principles of investigative canons."
13. From the perusal of record, it is clear that the recovery of 'khukhri' i.e. dragger was also effected from Up-Pradhan, who has collected the same from the place, where the quarrel had taken place. The facts, which have come on record as well as the law as cited by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties is considered. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that as the Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for reinvestigation. However, in a rare case, the reinvestigation can be ordered to meet the ends of justice. In the present case, presence of the petitioner is there at the time of incidence, as there was cross FIR's. The injuries were simple in nature on the person of petitioner and grievous on the person of other party was found and consequently, cross FIRs were registered. This Court after going through the entire record and the law as cited, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, thus concludes that there exists no ground to reinvestigate in the matter. The fact, as alleged by the petitioner that one of the respondent is working in the Vigilance Department, as Head Constable, is also considered, but after going through the record available, this Court comes to the conclusion that it cannot be said that he has influenced the investigation in any manner.
14. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the present petition, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending application (s) if any, also stands disposed of.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.