In an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of an order dated 28-03-2014 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Ambedkar Nagar, chargesheet dated 10-06-2015, and summoning order dated 21-11-2015 arising out of a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) under Sections 352, 504, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajeev Bharti dismissed the application holding that no ground for interference had been made out.
The said NCR was lodged on 26-03-2014, after which the complainant moved an application under Section 155(2) of the CrPC, which was allowed by the CJM. Thereafter, an investigation was conducted, the charge sheet was submitted, and the applicant was summoned.
The applicant contended that under Section 155(2) of the CrPC, permission for investigation could be sought only by a police officer, and that, since the complainant had moved the application, the permission granted by the CJM was illegal.
The Court perused the decisions by Co-ordinate benches in Navin Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P., 1995 All LJ 1688, as well as Brij Lal Bhar v. State of U.P., 2006 (4) ALJ 731, and followed the latter decision wherein it was held that there is no legal bar on the first informant to move an application under Section 155(2). It was stated that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the procedural provisions governing investigation must be interpreted to advance justice, not to frustrate legitimate prosecution.
Further, the Court stated that once the Magistrate has applied his judicial mind and allowed an application under Section 155(2), the investigation conducted cannot be held illegal merely because the complainant moved the said application. It was said that interference under Section 482 of the CrPC is required only when proceedings are conducted without jurisdiction, there is an abuse of process, or where continuation would result in the miscarriage of justice.
The Court held that the Magistrate may grant permission under Section 155(2) of the CrPC on an application moved by the complainant or any aggrieved person, and the investigation conducted pursuant thereto is not vitiated. Thus, the present application was dismissed on the ground that there was no basis for interference.
Appearances:
For Applicants – Mr. Ranvijay Singh
For Opposite Party(s) – Mr. Amresh Singh (Govt. Advocate), Ms. Shitla Prasad Tripathi
