Shaukat Rana vs State of U.P. and Another

V. D. Chaturvedi, J.—This revision has been filed by Shaukat Rana, an accused of Case Crime No. 169 of 1998, u/s 302, I.P.C., against the order dated 24.2.2004 whereby the learned C.J.M., Muzaffarnagar, has rejected his application for further investigation.

None is present for the revisionist even on the revision of the list. Sri Onkar Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has been heard and the record of the case has been perused.

The relevant facts are that the complainant Sadakat lodged an F.I.R. at Crime No. 169 of 1998 u/s 302, I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali, district Muzaffarnagar stating therein that Shaukat Rana (revisionist) and others had earlier committed the murder of Sakhawat and Aslam by firing at them and another ; that the said case was pending for evidence ; that the complainant''s father was an eye-witness of the said occurrence ; that the revisionist and other co-accused were pressurising the complainant''s father Rifakat to make compromise but the complainant''s father declined. Hence on 3.5.1998 at 5.45 a.m. Shaukat Rana (revisionist) and his brothers met his father and Shaukat Rana has committed the murder of the complainant''s father by firing at him. The local police conducted the investigation and submitted charge-sheet against the revisionist and others. Later the investigation was conducted by the C.B., C.I.D. under the orders of the Government. The Investigating Officer of C.B., C.I.D. ratified the charge-sheet submitted by the local police.

The learned Magistrate took the cognizance and thereafter supplied the necessary copies to the revisionist and others. On 24.2.2004, the learned C.J.M. was to commit the case to the Court of Session but meanwhile the revisionist moved an application u/s 173(8), Cr. P.C. for further investigation, which was rejected on reasons given by the C.J.M. and he committed the case same day to the Court of Session. Aggrieved by the said order dated 24.2.2004 the accused-revisionist Shaukat Rana has filed this revision.

I have perused the impugned order dated 24.2.2004, which goes to show that the charge-sheet by the local police was submitted and thereafter C.B., C.I.D. conducted further investigation and ratified the charge-sheet. The learned C.J.M. felt no need to pass an order for further investigation hence rejected the application.

The accused cannot claim as a matter of right, a discretion from the Court commanding further investigation by Investigating Officer u/s 173(8), Cr. P.C., after a charge-sheet has been filed after the investigation.

The power to pass an order for further investigation is discretionary. This discretion was properly exercised by learned C.J.M. The learned C.J.M. has exercised his discretion on reasons. I see no illegality or incorrectness in the impugned order warranting interference.

The revisionist was named in the F.I.R. The motive to commit the murder was to pressurize the eye-witness of a murder case to give evidence in accused''s favour. When such witness declined, the revisionist committed his murder. The charge-sheet submitted by the police was ratified by the C.B., C.I.D. Yet the revisionist filed this revision. Unfortunately the trial remained stayed for about two years due to the pendency of this revision.

The revision is devoid of merits. It is therefore dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000 equally payable to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The parties are directed to put in their appearance in court below on 22.11.2006. The trial court is desired to expedite the trial as early as possible.

Certify this order to the court below.

The interim order is hereby vacated.