Cal. HC: Cannot Differentiate Between Contractual and Permanent Employees For Maternity Leave  ||  Supreme Court: Entering Into Sale Agreement With Minor is Void and Unenforceable  ||  SC: Information Disclosing Cognizable Offence to Be Recorded as FIR & Not in General Diary  ||  Delhi High Court: Deployment of CISF Personnel Shall be Based on Operational Requirements  ||  All. HC: Returning Unpaid Check With Endorsement of Account Closed Amounts to Dishnonor of Cheque  ||  Karnataka HC: Courts Should Ensure That Legal Procedures Are Not Abused in Order to Reduce Burden  ||  Utt. HC: Joining in Service Cannot Be Denied to Woman on The Ground of Her Pregnancy  ||  Kar. HC: Can’t Stretch Protection u/a 21 to Those Posing Threat to Nation’s Sovereignty & Integrity  ||  Delhi High Court: Can’t Stop Student From Entering Exam Hall Once Admit Card Issued  ||  Supreme Court Asks Medical Colleges Either to Pay Stipend or Not Have Internship    

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



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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved