AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod Prasad, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the revisionists and the learned A.G.A.
This revision at the instance of the proposed accused persons is not maintainable as the final report was submitted and the Magistrate after hearing the complainant ordered for further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. The present revision has been filed by the malefactors in the said case challenging the aforesaid order. This matter no longer remains resjudicata as the Apex Court has dwelt upon this matter more than two decades ago in the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, it has been held by the apex court:
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 such obligation on the court would only result in encumbering the court with the burden of searching for all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard.
In that case Apex Court has held that the Magistrate is well within its power to order for further investigation u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. The accused at that stage cannot be heard nor they have got any right of hearing at that level. The Apex Court has laid down the law that before summoning the accused has got not right to the registration of F.I.R. and investigation of the crime. This law has been laid down by the Apex Court in Union of India v. W.N. Chadha 1993 SCC 1171.
In this view of the matter, the present revision at the behest of the proposed accused persons is not maintainable and hence it is dismissed as such.