Full Judgment
1. This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Jasram Singh, Shaukeen Khan, Satish Chandra Mishra, Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Naseer Ahmad, Rajendra Singh and Om Prakash with a prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1330 of 2008 under sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 201, 218 I.P.C.and 23/35 Arms Act, Police Station Sadabad, District Mahamaya Nagar pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hathras ( Mahamaya Nagar).
2. The facts, in brief, of this case are that an FIR has been lodged by Jagdish, O.P.No.2 against Bhura and Sardar Singh, N.K.Yadav and 3 or 4 police personnel on 14.2.2004 at about 6.00 P.M. alleging therein that the deceased Jaipal alias Jaipu, son of the first informant, was forcefully taken away by the accused persons by putting him in a jeep. Thereafter, he was killed by them on 10.12.2003 at about 9.30 P.M. After doing the investigation, the local police submitted the final report dated 28.2.2004. During pendency of the final report, National Human Right Commission passed the order to the State Government for conducting the investigation by the C.B.C.I.D., its investigation was taken by the C.B. C.I.D. and after collecting the evidence, the charge sheet dated 6.11.2008 has been submitted against the applicants and other accused persons on which the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the deceased of this case was a criminal. The FIR was lodged by Sri N.K.Yadav, the then SHO of Police Station Kotwali, District Mayamaya Nagar against the deceased and other miscreants in case crime no. 272 of 2003 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 I.P.C.and case crime no. 273 of 2003 under section 25-A of the Arms Act on 10.12.2003 at 11. 30 P.M. In that case the firing has been done by the deceased and his associates at the police party. In defence, the police party also discharged the shots , in that incident, the deceased was shot dead. After investigation, the final report was submitted in case crime no. 272 of 2003 , Police Station Kotwali Hathras . The FIR of this case has been lodged due to ulterior motive. After investigation, the local police has submitted the final report but without having any authority during pendency of the final report, the National Human Right Commission directed the State Government to conduct the investigation by C.B.C.I.D. In this case no permission was taken from the court concerned. The order passed by the National Human Right Commission is illegal. The investigation done by the C.B.C.I.D. is also illegal, therefore, the proceedings pending against the applicants may be quashed.
4. In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that in this case, the local police was the main party. According to the local police, the deceased died in police encounter whereas the family members of the deceased were not agreed with the police report. According to them, the deceased was taken up by the police , thereafter he was killed by them showing the fake encounter. The local police has submitted final report without doing the proper investigation, the final report has been submitted to save the skin of police personnel. The first informant of this case approached the higher authorities including the National Human Right Commission, the National Human Right Commission took it seriously and wrote a letter to Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow. In such a matter, the government took the decision and matter was handed over to C.B.C.I.D.who investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet. There was no illegality in doing further investigation for which the approval of the court was not required. The material collected by the I.O. is, prima facie, disclosing the commission of the offence in which charge sheet has been submitted, the application is devoid of merits and the same may be dismissed.
5. Considering the facts, circumstances of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record it appears that Sri N.K.Yadav, S.H.O. Kotwali, Hathras had lodged the FIR against the deceased and 5-6 miscreants in case crime no. 272 of 2003 on 10.12.2003 alleging therein that in police encounter the deceased has died. Thereafter the final report was submitted. The first informant, who is father of the deceased, lodged the FIR against the police personnel in which the final report has been submitted, thereafter the first informant approached other higher authorities also. The National Human Right Commission has taken the cognizance of the complaint filed by the first informant and written a letter to the Chief Secretary, U.P. for getting the matter investigated as per the guidelines laid down by the Commission in the letter dated 2.12.2003 to the Chief Minister of U.P. and directed the Chief Secretary of U.P. to entrust the investigation of the case to some independent agency, preferably, C.B.C.I.D. and submit report with its comments within 8 weeks. In pursuance of the above mentioned letter dated 7.3.2007 the State Government took the decision to entrust the investigation to the C.B.C.I.D. The investigation was taken over by the C.B.C.I.D. and after collecting the material, submitted the charge sheet dated 6.11.2008 in the court of learned Magistrate concerned , on which the learned Magistrate concerned has taken the cognizance on 12.11.2008. The investigation done by the C.B.C.I.D. shall be treated as a further investigation. There was no legal requirement to take permission from the court concerned for doing the further investigation. The material collected by the I.O. is ,prima facie, disclosing the commission of the offence. At this stage, the appreciation of the evidence may not be done. The I.O. has not committed any error in submitting the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate has not committed any error in taking the cognizance on the charge sheet submitted by the I.O. There is no good ground to quash the proceedings of the above mentioned case. The prayer for quashing the proceedings of the above mentioned case is refused.
6. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.