Baljeet Singh Vs. State

Baljeet Singh vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Sep 03, 2004

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/700118

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/700118
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: S.K. Agarwal, J.
Decided On: Sep 03, 2004
Case Number: Crl. Revision No. 386 of 2004
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 173(8); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471 and 477A; Prevention of Corruption Act

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Baljeet Singh

Advocate Sidharth Luthra and; Madhav Khurana, Advs

Respondent

State

Advocate V.K. Malik, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 173(8); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471 and 477A; Prevention of Corruption Act
Cases Referred: Abhinandan Jhan and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra
Reported In: 113(2004)DLT694

Excerpt

- .....crime branch is directed to conduct further investigation as per above direction passed and file a charge-sheet in the appropriate court after sanction under prevention of corruption act.'2. learned counsel for petitioner argues that while directing further investigation, the learned trial court could not have directed investigating agency to file fresh charge-sheet. it is argued that this direction does not sustainable in law. learned counsel places reliance on abhinandan jhan and ors. v. dinesh mishra, : 1968 crilj97 , wherein it was held:'there is no power, expressly or impliedly conferred, under the code, on a magistrate to call upon the 'police' to submit a charge-sheet, when they have sent a report under section 169 of the code, that there is no case made out for sending up an accused for trial. the functions of the magistracy and the police are entirely different, and though, the magistrate may or may not accept the report, and take suitable action, according to law, he cannot impinge upon the jurisdiction of the police, by compelling them to change their opinion, so as to accord with his view.'3. learned counsel for state has very fairly conceded that the impugned order directing the investigating agency to file the challan is not sustainable in law.4. in view of the above, part of the order directing the police to file charge-sheet in the appropriate court, after sanction under prevention of corruption act, is hereby set aside.5. with these directions, petition stands disposed of. dusty.

Full Judgment

ORDER

S.K. Agarwal, J.

1. This petition is directed against the order dated 31.5.2004 passed by the Court of Shri Digvinay Singh, MM, New Delhi in case FIR No. 835/2002 dated 24.9.2002 under Sections 409/420/468/471/477A/120B, IPC, PS Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, ordering further investigation under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. and directing the police to file the charge-sheet in appropriate Court after obtaining sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Relevant portion of the order reads as under:

'In my considered view, this matter be sent back for further investigation under Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. to DCP, Crime Branch. DCP, Crime Branch is directed to conduct further investigation as per above direction passed and file a charge-sheet in the appropriate Court after sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act.'

2. Learned Counsel for petitioner argues that while directing further investigation, the learned Trial Court could not have directed Investigating Agency to file fresh charge-sheet. It is argued that this direction does not sustainable in law. Learned Counsel places reliance on Abhinandan Jhan and Ors. v. Dinesh Mishra, : 1968 CriLJ97 , wherein it was held:

'There is no power, expressly or impliedly conferred, under the Code, on a Magistrate to call upon the 'police' to submit a charge-sheet, when they have sent a report under Section 169 of the Code, that there is no case made out for sending up an accused for trial. The functions of the Magistracy and the police are entirely different, and though, the Magistrate may or may not accept the report, and take suitable action, according to law, he cannot impinge upon the jurisdiction of the police, by compelling them to change their opinion, so as to accord with his view.'

3. Learned Counsel for State has very fairly conceded that the impugned order directing the Investigating Agency to file the challan is not sustainable in law.

4. In view of the above, part of the order directing the police to file charge-sheet in the appropriate Court, after sanction under Prevention of Corruption Act, is hereby set aside.

5. With these directions, petition stands disposed of. dusty.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2004 Same Parties Baljeet Singh vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge S.K. Agarwal, J. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 173(8); I...

Criminal