Judgment:
ORDER
Arun Tandon, J.
1. This revision under Section 397(1) has been filed against the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Oral dated 4-5-2009, wherein he has rejected the application (Paper No. 75 Kha) made by the revisionist for the proceedings in Crime Case No. 2384 of 2008 being stayed till further investigation reports are received. Facts relevant for deciding the present revision are as follows:
2. One Ashok Jatav made an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai on 16-1-2008, which was numbered as Misc. Application No. 22 of 2008, alleging therein that police has not taken any action on the application made by the applicant qua the criminal acts as reported in the application against the present revisionist. On the said application the Chief Judicial Magistrate called for report from the concerned police station. The police submitted its report and thereafter the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 30.01.2008 directed that a report be lodged and investigation be made. In compliance of the said order a report was lodged, which was registered as Crime Case No. 69 of 2008 under Sections 147,148, 302 IPC read with 3(2)(v). SC/ST Act. Investigation was initiated and the statement of Sri Ashok Jatav was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. along with other persons. The police, after investigation, submitted a final report on 21-4-2008.
3. Sri Ashok Jatav filed a protest petition. While the matter was pending at that stage Sri Ashok Jatav is stated to have made an application before the State Government alleging that the investigation has not been properly carried out and that further investigation be directed to be conducted by some other Police Officer. The Inspector General of Police (Lok Shikayat), Lucknow forwarded the complaint of Ashok Jatav to the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun with the direction that further investigation be got carried out by some other Circle Officer. Accordingly, Circle Officer, Kalpi vide letter dated 31-5-2008 was directed to carry out further investigation. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police, Jalaun vide order dated 3-6-2008 transferred the investigation of Crime Case No. 69 of 2008 to the Circle Officer, Madhogarh. On the application made by the Circle Officer, Madhogarh, the Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 6-11-2008 permitted the return of the case diary in accordance with law.
4. The Judicial Magistrate passed an order on 21-10-2008 for summoning of the applicants in Crime Case No. 69 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act. The summoning order was challenged by the revisionist by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C, which is stated to have been disposed of vide order dated 21-1-2009.
5. The applicant at this stage of the proceedings made an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, being Paper No. 75 Kha, for stay/recall of the order dated 21-10-2008 till further investigation is completed by the police. This application of the revisionist has been rejected by means of the order dated 4-5-2009 giving rise to the present revision.
6. On behalf of the revisionist it has been contended that further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. can be directed at any stage of the proceedings, even where cognizance has been taken by the concerned court. Reliance in that regard has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in : JT 1998 (3) SC 612 : AIR 1998 SC 2001 K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and Ors. and : 2009 (5) JT 14 : 2009 AIR SCW 3084 Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar.
7. It is contended that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, refusing to stay the further proceedings till further investigation is completed, is illegal, inasmuch as after further investigation material facts may discover whereunder it may be found that the revisionist is not liable to be summoned.
8. The prayer so made on behalf of the revisionist is opposed by the Government Advocate and it is contended that once cognizance has been taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any further investigation under Section 173(8) could have been directed by the Court itself and in any view of the matter it is submitted that once cognizance has been taken, any order for further investigation under Section 173(8) by the State will not in itself be a ground for stay of the further proceedings subsequent to the cognizance has been taken.
9. I have heard counsel for the revisionist and have gone through the records of the revision.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar 2009 AIR SCW 3084 (supra) has specifically held that further investigation can be directed at any stage of the proceedings, even where cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned. The relevant paragraph 9 of the judgment reads as follows:
9. The above said provision also makes it clear that further investigation is permissible, however, reinvestigation is prohibited. The law does not mandate taking of prior permission from the Magistrate for further investigation. Carrying out a further investigation even after filing of the charge-sheet is a statutory right of the police. Reinvestigation without prior permission is prohibited. On the other hand, further investigation is permissible.
11. In view of the aforesaid this Court has no hesitation to record that further investigation, as was directed under order of the Director General of Police dated 31-5-2008 followed by the order of the Superintendent of Police dated 3-6-2008, being referable' to Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. cannot be faulted with. This Court, therefore, holds that the further investigation, as directed, was not in any way illegal or contrary to the provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The objection of the Government Advocate to the contrary is rejected.
12. The issue which now survives for consideration is as to whether, after cognizance has been taken by this Court, any order under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. passed by the State Authorities would necessarily result in stay of the, further proceedings or would necessitate stay of the further proceedings in the interest of justice till report after further investigation is received or not.
13. I am of the considered opinion that none of the aforesaid two contingency follow because of an order of further investigation referable to Section 173(8) subsequent to taking of the cognizance.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar 2009 AIR SCW 3084 (supra), in paragraph 10 has clarified that further investigation can be directed even when cognizance has been taken and the material collected during such investigation has to be brought to the notice of the Court concerned. The relevant portion of paragraph 10 is reads as follows:
10. ...Sub-section (8) of Section 173 clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation, the investigation agency has to forward to the Magistrate a 'further' report and not fresh report regarding the 'further' evidence obtained during such investigation.
15. In view of the aforesaid what logically follows is that it is not necessary that the proceedings subsequent to cognizance should be kept in abeyance till further investigation reports are received, nor it is so warranted 'under any of the provision of the Cr.P.C. The purpose of the investigation is only to collect such further material and to submit the; same before the Court concerned.
16. Therefore, in the facts of the present case I have no hesitation to hold that the Revisional Court has rightly rejected the application, being paper No. 75-Kha. There is no illegality in the order so passed.
17. This, revision lacks merit and is dismissed. It is clarified that the order of the Circle Officer refusing to carry out further investigation is not a subject matter of challenge in this application. Revisionist is at liberty to seek his remedy, if any, against the same in accordance with law.
18. At this stage counsel for the applicant has submitted that some reasonable time to be granted to surrender before the court concerned and to apply for bail.
19. In the facts of this case, it is provided that if the applicant surrenders on or before 31st July, 2009 before the court concerned and makes an application for bail, then his bail application shall be decided at the earliest, if possible on the same day.
20. Till 31st July, 2009 no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.