Central Bureau of Investigation vs Rupinder Kaur

Amar Dutt, J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 16.2.2000 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangrur wherein, on a concession being made by the Public Prosecutor attached to his Court, the said Officer had directed that the investigation of case F.I.R. No. 143 dated 10.7.1999 registered in Police Station Dhuri should be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short the ''C.B.I.'').

According to the petitioner, there was nothing available in Section 173 Cr.P.C. which would enable the Sessions Judge to entrust the investigation of the case to the C.B.I.

This contention is opposed on behalf of the complainant-Rupinder Kaur, who has moved an application for entrustment of the investigation to the C.B.I. on the ground that she had already moved a separate petition before this Court for a similar relief and, therefore, this revision should not be heard on merits. Learned counsel for the complainant has also adverted to the circumstances in which the case was registered and the order passed by this Court on 2.11.1999 while disposing of Criminal Misc. No. 34246-M of 1999 in the following terms ;-

"Even according to the petitioner, challan has been filed in the competent Court as required u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence u/s 306 IPC. According to the petitioner, the offence is committed u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC. It is open to the petitioner to satisfy the Magistrate before whom the challan has been presented though the offence committed is u/s 302 IPC and seek direction from the Learned Magistrate for further investigation, if he is able to satisfy him."

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. While it is correct that this Court has granted liberty to Rupinder Kaur to move an application before the trial Magistrate to satisfy that the challan has been presented u/s 306 IPC though the offence committed is u/s 302 IPC and seek appropriate directions for further investigation yet this order by itself would not enable the Sessions Judge, who is not the Illaqa Magistrate to exercise the powers averted to in the order of this Court for initiating further investigations in the case much less directing that the same be conducted by the C.B.I. Even the Magistrate before whom the challan was presented though empowered to order further investigations in the matter would not be entitled to transfer the same to the C.B.I., as has been observed in Central Bureau of Investigation through S.P. v. State of Rajasthan 2000(1) R.C.R. 574 to the following effect :-

"As the present discussion is restricted Co the question whether a Magistrate can direct the CBI to conduct investigation in exercise of his powers u/s 156(3) of the Code it is unnecessary for us to travel beyond the scope of that issue. We, therefore, reiterate that the magisterial power cannot be stretched under the said sub-section beyond directing the officer in charge of a police station to conduct the investigation."

For the reasons recorded above, without prejudice to the rights of Rupinder Kaur to approach this Court separately for any direction in this matter, this petition is allowed and the order dated 16.2.2000 is set aside.

Petition allowed.