The Allahabad High Court, under the judgment delivered by Justice Saurabh Lavania, has dismissed an application seeking re-investigation or further investigation in an assault case involving Vishal Tripathi. The case, filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), was numbered 6104 of 2024.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR (No. 0228 of 2023) lodged on July 24, 2023, by Pramod Tiwari against Vishal Tripathi and others, including Devendra Tripathi, Rudra Tripathi, Aradhana Tripathi, and Susheela. The FIR, filed under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 147, 323, 325, 427, 452, alleged that the accused assaulted Pramod Tiwari and his family members, resulting in injuries. The incident supposedly occurred on the night of July 23, 2023, around 10:00 PM.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case was whether the court should order a re-investigation or further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC after the charge sheet had already been filed by the Investigating Officer (I.O.). The applicant, Vishal Tripathi, argued that discrepancies in the dates and times of the incident, as reported by the informant and witnesses, warranted a re-investigation. The defense counsel, led by Sri Dinesh Kumar Mishra, cited the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others vs. State of Gujarat to support their claim that a Magistrate has the power to order further investigation even after the submission of the charge sheet.
Court’s Decision
The court, after considering the arguments and reviewing the case documents, upheld the trial court’s decision to reject the application for re-investigation. The court emphasized that an accused does not have the right to demand a re-investigation or further investigation at the stage of investigation. The court cited multiple precedents, including Union of India v. W.N. Chadha and Romila Thapar vs. Union of India, to assert that the accused cannot interfere with the investigation process.
Key Observations
Justice Lavania made several important observations in his judgment:
1. Accused’s Rights During Investigation: “An accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation,” the court noted, referencing Union of India v. W.N. Chadha.
2. Further Investigation: The court clarified, “Further investigation within the meaning of Section 173(8) CrPC is additional; more; or supplemental. It is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio.”
3. Judicial Precedents: The judgment extensively cited the Supreme Court’s rulings, emphasizing that the power to order further investigation lies within the discretion of the Magistrate and is not an inherent right of the accused.
Also Read
Counsel and Parties Involved
– Applicant: Vishal Tripathi
– Opposite Party: State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Lucknow
– Counsel for Applicant: Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Ripu Daman Shahi, Upendra Kumar Singh
– Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Rakesh Dwivedi
