Supreme Court: Foreign Companies’ Head Office Expenses in India are Capped under Section 44C  ||  SC Directs Trial Courts to Systematically Catalogue Witnesses and Evidence in Criminal Judgments  ||  SC Calls For Sensitising Future Generations on Equality in Marriage to Combat Dowry Practices  ||  SC: Separate Suits Against Confirmed Auction Sales are Barred; Remedy Available under Sec 47  ||  NCLT Mumbai: Oppression Claims Against Majority Shareholders Do not Justify Winding up a Company  ||  J&K&L HC Rules it Illegal and Inequitable to Deny Regularisation to a Daily Wager After 34 Years  ||  J&K&L High Court: Revisional Powers Must Be Used Within Reasonable Time; Merits Don’t Justify Delay  ||  Supreme Court: Compassionate Appointees Cannot Later Claim Entitlement to a Higher Post  ||  NCLAT New Delhi: Insolvency Pleas Cannot Be Admitted When Information Utility Records Show a Dispute  ||  NCLAT: Issuing Cheques For Another Entity’s Liabilities Does not Constitute Operational Debt    

Rahul Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. - (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (27 Aug 2018)

Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide for reinvestigation. In a rare case, re-investigation can be ordered to meet ends of justice

MANU/HP/1202/2018

Criminal

The present petition is maintained by the Petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for re-investigation in the FIR under Sections 341, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well FIR under Section 325 of the IPC, both registered at Police Station, and also for quashing the investigation in the aforesaid FIRs. Learned 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.

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. CrPC does not provide for re-investigation. 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. Present Court 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, present Court comes to the conclusion that it cannot be said that he has influenced the investigation in any manner. Petition dismissed.

Tags : FIR   RE-INVESTIGATION   QUASHING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved