# Ram Komal & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 1 ILRA 932
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 12417 of 2005
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-komal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49242
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections - 173(8), 216, 228, 240
& 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 149, 323, 452, 435, 504 &
506 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing the
criminal proceedings - a dispute originated
from a land-related altercation where eight
individuals allegedly assaulted the family of
informant - FIR - Investigation - charge-sheet
- against five accused, with three others were
cleared
without
court
permission
and
allegedly without new evidence - order of S.P.
transferred the investigation to a different
police station, resulting in a second chargesheet implicating all eight - the applicants
claimed procedural irregularities and sought
to quash the entire case - the court examined
the legality of transferring the investigation
without judicial sanction by citing Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. and distinguishing the facts
from a referenced Supreme Court ruling and
held that, no formal permission of the
concerned court was necessary for S.P. before
transferring the investigation to another I.O.
of another Police Station - hence, the second
charge-sheet was upheld as legally sound and
accordingly, application is dismissed - with
direction to the Judicial Magistrate to proceed
promptly with the trial and conclude it as
early as possible as the matter become very
old. (Para - 20, 21, 23)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
allegations may also disclose a civil dispute
between the parties.

17. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, there appears to be no illegality
in the charge-sheet or the impugned
summoning order dated 25.05.2023.

18. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. lacks merit and the same is
dismissed
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 932
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 12417 of 2005

Ram Komal & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Neeraj Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri K.N. Mishra, Sri R.K. Shahi

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections - 173(8), 216, 228, 240
& 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 149, 323, 452, 435, 504 &
506 - Application u/s 482 - for quashing the
criminal proceedings - a dispute originated
from a land-related altercation where eight
individuals allegedly assaulted the family of
informant - FIR - Investigation - charge-sheet
- against five accused, with three others were
cleared
without
court
permission
and
allegedly without new evidence - order of S.P.
transferred the investigation to a different
police station, resulting in a second chargesheet implicating all eight - the applicants
claimed procedural irregularities and sought
to quash the entire case - the court examined
the legality of transferring the investigation
without judicial sanction by citing Section
173(8) Cr.P.C. and distinguishing the facts
from a referenced Supreme Court ruling and
held that, no formal permission of the
concerned court was necessary for S.P. before
transferring the investigation to another I.O.
of another Police Station - hence, the second
charge-sheet was upheld as legally sound and
accordingly, application is dismissed - with
direction to the Judicial Magistrate to proceed
promptly with the trial and conclude it as
early as possible as the matter become very
old. (Para - 20, 21, 23)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs St. of Guj.,
(2004) 5 SCC 347,

2.
Om
Prakash
Narang
Vs
St.
(Delhi
Administration) AIR 1979 SCC 1791,

3. Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha
Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs St. of A.P.,
AIR 1999 SC 2332,

4. N.P. Jharia Vs St. of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2677.

(Delivered by Hon'bleUmesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Neeraj Singh, learned
counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A
for the State and perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the
proceeding of Criminal Case No. 1278 of
2005, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 452,
435, 504, and 506 I.P.C., registered at
Police Station Bankata, District Deoria,
pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
Court No. 11, Deoria.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
on 08.01.2005 at about 3:00 p.m., eight
persons including the applicants came to
1 All. Ram Komal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
933
the house of informant-opposite party no. 2
- Uma Shankar Kushwaha with an
intention of taking possession of Sahen
land, which was situated at the door of the
informant. During the said action, all the
accused abused the family members of the
informant, entered into the house and
beaten them. In this connection an F.I.R
was lodged by opposite party no 2 on the
same day at 03:00 p.m, which was
registered as Case Crime No. 03/2005
under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506,
452, 435 I.P.C at P.S. Bankata, District
Deoria. A copy of the same is annexed as
Annexure No. 1 to the affidavit. The
Station Officer of P.S. Bankata investigated
the matter and after completing the
investigation, a cherge-sheet was submitted
by him on 13th January, 2005 against five
persons namely Daroga, Rakesh @ Lal
Babu, Chandrika, Manoj and Pramod,
under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C
and found that the applicants namely Ram
Komal, Rajesh and Bhuwar were falsely
implicated and as such final report has been
submitted in respect of the applicants. A
copy of the charge-sheet/final report has
been annexed as annexure no. 2 to the
application.

4. On the said charge-sheet, the
learned Magistrate took cognizance and
issued process on 29.03.2005 against the
aforesaid five accused persons in Case
Crime No. 846 of 2005. The aforesaid
order has been annexed as Annexure 03 to
the application. In pursuance of the
aforesaid order dated 29.03.2005, all the
aforesaid five accused persons appeared
before the concerned Magistrate and they
were released on bail .

5. On 22.01.2005, the informant filed
an application before S.P. Deoria for the
transfer of the aforesaid case from Police
Station Bankata to Police Station Kotwali,
Salempur, District Deoria, to reinvestigate
the matter. A copy of the same is annexed
as Annexure no. 4 to the application.
Thereafter, S.P Deoria transferred the
aforesaid case from Police Station Bankata
to Police Station Kotwali, Salempur, vide
its order dated 10.02.2005 to reinvestigate
the
matter
without
seeking
formal
permission from the concerned court. The
aforesaid order is annexed as annexure no.
5 to the application. The S.P. transferred
the case without assigning any reason for
investigation after the submission of the
charge-sheet. Thereafter, S.I. Ram Ashray
Yadav of P.S Kotwali Salempur, Deoria
reinvestigated the matter and submitted a
charge-sheet against all eight persons,
including the applicants under Sections
147, 149, 452, 435, 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C
on 14.4.2005, who were already exonerated
by the first I.O. of P.S. Bankata. A copy of
the charge-sheet has been annexed as
Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit.

6. On the aforesaid second chargesheet applicants have been summoned by
Judicial Magistrate Court No. 11, Deoria in
Criminal Case No. 1278 of 2005 - (State
Vs. Ram Komal & Ors.), under the
aforesaid Sections. A copy of the order
dated 15.06.2005 has has been annexed as
Annexure No. 7, to the affidavit.

7. It is relevant to mention here that
no permission was sought by S.P. Deoria
from
the
concerned
court
before
transferring the aforesaid investigation. The
applicants have falsely been implicated in
the said case, which was also found by the
Ist I.O of the case and relying on the first
charge-sheet, the Judicial Magistrate had
summoned only five persons as accused. It
is relevant to mention that no new fact
came in light as a ground, even though a
934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
second charge-sheet has been submitted
against the applicants.

8. In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi
Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 347,
the Apex Court has held that the Police has
to inform the Court and shall seek formal
permission to make further investigation
when fresh facts come to the light.

9. In view of the above, the
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1278 of
2005-(State Vs. Ram Komal and others),
pending in the Court of Judicial MagistrateII, Deoria, be quashed.

Copies of the referred papers
have been annexed to the affidavit.

10. The informant opposite party no.
2, filed a counter affidavit and denied the
allegations of the applicants. He further
contended that the First I.O. of the case had
not investigated the case properly, he was
under the influence of the accused persons,
he recorded the statements of the persons,
who were enimical to complainant/opposite
party no. 2 to save the real culprits. The
complainant and the injured persons had
clearly stated in their statement before the
First I.O that all the accused persons had
caused injury to them and put their hut on
fire. The statements of the witnesses have
been appended to the counter affidavit in
Criminal Misc. Application No. 13695 of
2005. The I.O. of P.S. Bankata did not
investigate
the
matter
properly.
A
complaint was moved before S.P. Deoria
for transferring the investigation to another
Police Station. The said request was
considered and S.P. Deoria, vide an order
dated 10th Feb. 2005 and in the interest of
justice transferred the investigation from
P.S. Bankata to P.S. Kotwali, Salempur,
Deoria. There is no need of formal
permission of the concerned Court and the
order dated 10th February, 2005 passed by
S.P. Deoria is just and legal. The
investigation had been transferred by S.P.
Deoria when he found that P.S. Bankata
was not investigating the case properly,
hence for the proper investigation he had
transferred the investigation. After proper
investigation, the I.O. S.I. Ram Ashray
Yadav submitted the charge-sheet against
the applicants under the aforesaid Sections,
which is legal, just and proper and in
accordance with law and does not require
any interference by this Court at this stage.

11. The Court below has legally
summoned
the
accused
persons
in
accordance with the law. The Second I.O.
has submitted the subsequent charge-sheet
on the basis of new material facts. The
Apex Court has clearly held that further
investigation is no bar under Section 173
(8) of the Cr.P.C while the Police Report
has been submitted earlier. From the bare
perusal of the judgment of the Apex Court
as stated by the applicant, it is borne out
that further investigation can be conducted,
without the direction of the concerned court
and the formal permission is not necessary
if the head of police thinks it is proper. He
has the right to direct the police for
reinvestigation or transfer of investigation
to some other Police Station. Hence, the
judgment cited by the applicants is not
applicable in the present case.

12. During the pendency of the
present application, the applicants further
attacked upon the complainant and his
family members on 14.12.2005. In this
regard, another F.I.R has also been lodged
as Case Crime No. 556 of 2005, under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504 and
506 I.P.C at P.S. Bankata, district Deoria
and the complainant and the injured family
1 All. Ram Komal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
935
members were medically examined same
day.

13. Therefore, the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C be dismissed.

14. No rejoinder has been filed by
the
applicants
against
the
counter
affidavit of O.P. No.2.

15. Heard and perused the record.

16. The applicants have taken only
one ground that before passing an order
to reinvestigate the case, the S.P. Deoria
was duty-bound to take permission from
the concerned Magistrate. In this regard,
the applicants have relied on Hasanbhai
Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat
(supra), in which an application was
moved to get the case investigated by an
independent Agency other than the Police
as the Local Police was under the
pressure of the local M.L.A and the
investigation was not carried out in a
straight-forward manner. In the aforesaid
case, initially an F.I.R had been lodged
under Sections 395 and 120-B of the
I.P.C and Section 135 of the Bombay
Police Act, but after a few hours of
registration of the F.I.R, Sections 395 and
120-B
I.P.C
were
deleted
by
the
prosecuting agency and as a result of
such
deletion
the
accused
persons
managed to get bail.

17. The facts of both the cases are
quite different. In this case no prayer was
made to S.P. Deoria to transfer the
investigation to another agency, rather a
request
was
made
to
transfer
the
investigation from one Police Station to
another and after being satisfied, S.P.
Deoria transferred the investigation to
Police Station Kotwali, Salempur, Deoria.
Thereafter, the case was investigated by
another I.O, who submitted a charge-sheet
against all eight accused persons named in
the F.I.R including the applicants.

18. In the cited case, an aspect of
amendment of charge was also involved
and Sections 228, 240 and 216 Cr.P.C.
were also dealt with. The Apex Court had
considered Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C
and has held that it is open to the Police to
conduct a proper investigation, even after
the court took cognizance of any offence on
the strength of a police report earlier
submitted.

19. In this case, the S.P. Deoria, was
not satisfied with the investigation done by
the I.O. of P.S Bankata. The Apex Court
relying on Om Prakash Narang Vs. State
(Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SCC
1791, held that, further investigation is not
altogether ruled out. If cognizance has been
taken by the Court when defective
investigation comes to light during the
course of trial, it may be cleared by further
investigation,
if
circumstances
so
permitted. Though it has also been said that
the Court should be informed and formal
permission may be taken when fresh facts
come to light. In this case, according to the
F.I.R, the whole facts were before the I.O
that all the accused persons had committed
the offence and the first I.O. of P.S.
Bankata, being influenced by the applicants
exonerated him and submitted a chargesheet only in respect of the rest of the five
accused persons. In short, the Apex Court
held that if there is a necessity for further
investigation, the same can certainly be
done as prescribed by Law. The Court
further held that the mere fact that there
may be further delay in concluding the
trial, does not stand on the way of further
investigation, if that would help the Court
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in arriving at truth and do real substantial
as well as effective justice.

Section 173 (8) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure is as under:-

"(8) 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 sub- sections (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)."

20. In Sri Bhagwan Samardha
Sreepada
Vallabha
Venkata
Vishwanandha Maharaj v. State of A.P.,
AIR 1999 SC 2332 and in N.P. Jharia v.
State of M.P., AIR 2007 SC 2677, it has
been held that even after the Court took
cognizance of any offence, on strength of
police report first submitted, it is open to
Police to conduct further investigation. In
such a situation power of Court to direct
the Police to conduct further investigation
can not have any inhibition. There is
nothing in Section 173 (8) to suggest that
the Court is obliged to hear the accused
before any such direction is made. Casting
of any such obligation on Court would only
result in encumbering it with burden of
searching for all potential accused to be
afforded with opportunity of being heard.

21. On the basis of above discussion,
this Court is of the considered view that in
the facts and circumstances of this case no
formal permission of the concerned court
was necessary for S.P. Deoria before
transferring the investigation to another I.O
of another Police Station. Thus, the present
application has no force and is liable to be
dismissed.

O R D E R

22. This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C is rejected accordingly and the
stay order stands vacated.

23. Let a copy of this order be sent to
the Judicial Magistrate II, Deoria, to
proceed with the Criminal Case No. 1278
of 2005, under Sections 147, 149, 323, 452,
435, 504, 506 I.P.C, registered at Police
Station
Bankata,
District
Deoria,
in
accordance with the law and to conclude its
trial as early as possible, as the matter has
become very old.
----------
(2024) 1 ILRA 936
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 12771 of 2023

Brij Mohan ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Puneet Saxena, Sanjeev Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 323, 504 & 506 - Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1932 - Section 10 -
Charge-sheet - Validity - Applicant submits that