Simrandeep Singh Sandhu vs Union Territory, Chandigarh

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.) challenging the order dated 01.05.2012 (Annexure P-2) whereby, application moved by the petitioner u/s 156(3) read with Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in FIR No. 135 dated 03.05.2008 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 506, 452, 307 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station Sector 11, Chandigarh was dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

In the present case, the Trial Court, while dismissing the application moved by the petitioner for ordering further investigation in the case has held as under:-

Heard. In the present case, this application is not moved by prosecution but is moved by one of the injured Simrandeep Singh. In my opinion, this Court has received the challan after commitment. The perusal of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. deals with the powers of Magistrate, which is read as follows:-

Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of subsections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2).

In my opinion, this Court has no power u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. to make any order for reinvestigation or further investigation as argued by learned counsel for appellant.

During course of arguments, learned Public Prosecutor raised point that if the police had not arrested Jujhar Singh as per Simrandeep Singh, who is one of the injured in the said case, then the remedy lies within the complainant''s side or with the prosecution to move an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. at appropriate stage of the trial of the matter and I find merit in these arguments of learned Public Prosecutor.

The reasons given by learned Additional Sessions Judge while passing the impugned order are sound reasons. In the present case, after investigation of the case, challan has been presented against accused Barinder Dhillon, Harpreet Singh and Gobind Khatra. However, challan was not presented against Gursewak Singh and Jujhar Singh, although, they are named in the FIR. Gursewak Singh and Jujhar Singh can be summoned on an application moved during trial u/s 319 Cr.P.C., in case some material comes on record against them during trial. However, the application moved by the petitioner for seeking a direction for further investigation in the matter was liable to be dismissed.

Hence, no ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.