Ram Milan Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

S.K. Agarwal, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

The submission raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant before the Court is that if the cross-version is regarding different manner of assault alone, no cross report can be registered. It is open for the Investigating Officer to receive the conversation of the case in the course of investigation of the case already registered by one party and to investigate the other version also along with it.

A decision passed in the case Ram Mohan Garg v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1990 ACC 438, by Division Bench of this Court was brought to my notice in support of this submission. With due respect to the decision of the Division Bench, I am not convinced. I am prepared to go to the extent that this case is distinguishable from the facts at hand. If such a bar is created on the registration of the cross-version, we are going to obviate the provision of Section 154, Cr. P.C. and Section 156 (1), Cr. P.C. The power to investigate any case flows from registration of a cognizable offence alone. Without registration of the cognizable offence, the exercise of collection of evidence is not to obtain the necessary sanction of law. It shall be only an enquiry in nature. The police so doing shall not be invested with the competence to file a charge-sheet or final report u/s 173 or 169, Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus, registration of cognizable offence is a must whether it is in the form of first version or cross-version. Any statement given to Investigating Officer by an accused is not admissible in evidence. It is expressly barred by Section 161, Cr. P.C. It can only be used to contradict its maker by the accused or prosecution. This section cannot be used for any other purpose. Use of it in any manner other than the one presented by law is not permitted. It shall amount to granting the police a licence to toy with such version at will to the detriment of any accused.

In the result, I do not find any merit in this application and it is accordingly rejected.

However, if the applicant w(30)ho is accused in the cross-version and his F.I.R. is also being investigated by the same police appears before the Court or brought in custody before the Court, his bail application shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible by the Court concerned.