Chandra Prakash Tyagi vs State of U.P. and Another

S.K. Phaujdar, J.—All these four cases have been taken up together as a common prayer has been made and a common point of law arises. These applications relate to Case Crime Nos. 178 of 1991 (Under Section 307, I.P.C., P.S. Khekhra), 87 of 1997 (under Section 302, I.P.C.P.S. Modi Nagar), 352 of 1991 (Under Section 307.I.P.C.P.S. Brahmapuri), 523 of 1993 Under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307, I.P.C.P.S. Lalkunti), all belonging to district Meerut.

In the first-mentioned case, the applicant was not mentioned in the F.I.R. The only person named therein was Rabi Datt Tyagi against whom a charge-sheet was submitted. It is stated that Rabi Datt is dead but there has been an initiation of a further investigation after submission of the charge-sheet. In the second mentioned case, one Kamal Kishore was named in the F.I.R. with two unknown persons and charge-sheet was submitted and, in this case also, further investigation has been taken up subsequently. The third case, as above, was initiated against Rabi Datt Tyagi and another. There was no injury caused to anybody. Rabi Datt Tyagi was allegedly arrested on the spot. Charge-sheet was submitted. Rabi Datt died thereafter and subsequently a further investigation has been started in this case.

The fourth case was one in which the applicant was named an accused and though c harge-sheet was submitted, the matter was being investigated further by the local police.

The applicant Chandra Prakash Tyagi claims to be an advocate practicing in the District Bar, Meerut, and claims membership of the Supreme Court Bar Association also. As stated above, the common prayer in all these cases is that investigation may be entrusted to the C.B. C.I.D or the C.B.I.

When asked as to whether this Court in exercise of powers u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure could interfere in investigation in view of the positive bar as pronounced by this Court in Ram Lai''s case as also in the case of A.S. Bindra, Crl Misc. Writ Petition No. 1342 of 1997, the learned counsel submitted that once charge-sheet was submitted, the Court could exercise its powers u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure and it would not be an interference in the investigation.

The learned A.G.A., however, stated that even though it is conceded that the powers u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure could be exercised in respect of this further investigation, the very prayer is untenable in the light of the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation and another Vs. Rajesh Gandhi and another, . A reading of this case-law indicates that the Supreme Court had clearly ruled that the accused could not have a say in the matter of agency of investigation. He cannot choose the agency which would investigate into the offence with which he is charged. The Supreme Court ruled that the decision to investigate or the decision on the agency which should investigate the offence did not attract principles of natural justice.

In view of the above clear opinion of the Supreme Court on the right of the accused to choose the agency of investigation, I feel that the prayer may not be entertained u/s 482, Code of criminal procedure.

In view of the above, all the present four applications stand rejected.