Judgment:
ORDER
Sunil Kumar Garg, J.
1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners for quashing FIR No. 86/2000 of the Police Station. Hamirwas, Dist. Churu for offence under Sections 395, 397, 149, 323 and 342, I.P.C.
2. This misc. petition arises in the following circumstances :
(1) One Mohan Lal lodged a written report with the Police Station Hamirwas on 16-5-2001 stating inter alia that, he was dealing in business of ornaments and on 15-5-2001, he was coming from Delhi in Bus No. RJ-07/2099 and one Delhi Party had given him 16.33 Kgs. silver and 35 gms. gold for preparing ornaments and he was carrying that with him. In the bus, near about this seat, one person of Sardarshahar named as Nanu was also sitting. When the bus reached near Rajgarh a jeep came there and that jeep stopped in front of the bus and from the jeep 7 to 8 persons having guns and pistols in their hand came down and all the persons boarded the bus. It was further stated that their faces were covered with clothes etc. and after sitting in the bus, these persons took away his brief-case and got him down from the bus and he was further asked to sit in the jeep and they took him in the village and got him down and took away all the articles amounting to Rs. 75,000/-. Thereafter he went to village and lodged the report.
3. On this report, the police registered a case for the aforesaid offences and started investigation. Since names of any of the accused persons were not mentioned in the report, the police submitted FIR as whereabouts of accused persons were not known at that time.
4. That after that in the month of Oct., 2001, as news was published in the newspaper that one man had been arrested pertaining to the present FIR and his name was Nirmal Kumar and during investigation, he confessed the guilt. Thereafter on 15-10-2001, Nirmal Kumar was arrested and on his information, some articles were also recovered and ultimately after completion of investigation, the police filed challan against Nirmal Kumar for offence under Sections 395 and 342, I.P.C. in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge.
5. In the charge-sheet filed by the police against Nirmal Kumar, it was stated that during the course of enquiry and investigation specially from accused Nirmal Kumar, names of accused-petitioners were also disclosed, but since investigation was not complete and they were not arrested, the challan was filed only against Nirmal Kumar and investigation was kept pending so far as present accused-petitioners are concerned.
6. Now the case of the accused-petitioners is that the police is bent upon to arrest them and since statement of co-accused Nirmal Kumar cannot be regarded as substantial piece of evidence, therefore, on disclosure of the names by another co-accused Nirmal Kumar, the police cannot given the arrest the accused petitioners, therefore, so far as present accused-petitioners are concerned, FIR No. 86/2000/- against them should be quashed.
7. Heard.
8. In my considered opinion, if during investigation the police has come to the conclusion that some more persons are involved in the crime and for that source may be even the statement of co-accused, the High Court should not exercise inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the statutory power of the police to investigate the alleged offence and quash the proceedings. Any action at this stage is premature.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Jayant Vitamins Ltd. v. Chaitanya Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1930 : 1992 Cri LJ 3450 has held that the investigation to an offence is a statutory function of the police and the superintendence thereof is vested in the State Government and the Court is not justified without any compelling and justifiable reason to interfere with the investigation. Thus, where the investigation which is still on its way and the further investigation in the offence is legally permissible as contemplated by Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. the quashing of investigation by the High Court would not be permissible.
10. Keeping the above observations in mind, the prayer that the FIR No. 86/2000 of the Police Station, Hamirwas be quashed does not appear to be reasonable one and hence this misc. petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the case of Param Hans Yadav and Sadanand Tripathi v. State of Bihar reported in (1987) 2 SCC 197 : 1987 Cri LJ 789 and has argued that confession of co-accused is not substantial evidence and therefore if the police is going to file challan against the accused petitioners on the basis of confession of the co-accused, the same is illegal, and the FIR so far as it relates to them be quashed.
12. This argument is not to be appreciated at this stage because assessment of confession of co-accused at the time of trial and assessment of confession, of co-accused at the time of investigation are two different stages. This above judgment was passed while disposing of the appeal by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and before this Court the matter is still pending with the police at the , level of investigation. Therefore, this argument would not be helpful to the accused petitioners at this stage.
For the reasons mentioned above, this criminal misc. petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. is dismissed.