CaseTitle:
Farha Faiz Vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Date Of Order:
12th July 2022
Judge:
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra, J. ad Hon'ble Deepak Verma, J.
Parties:
Petitioner: Farha Faiz
Counsel for Petitioner: Ravindra Kumar Mishra, Brij Raj Singh
Respondent: State of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Respondent: -G.A., Ajay Kumar Sharma
Subject
According to Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Allahabad High Court has the authority to conduct additional investigations, and only the investigating agency is authorised to request additional investigations from the magistrate.
Important Provisions
1. Section 173(8) CrPC
Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation into an offence after a report under subsection (2) has been forwarded to the magistrate, and where during such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains additional evidence, either 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 subsections (2) to (6) shall, insofar as applicable, apply to any further investigation into the alleged offence (2).
2. Sections 120BIPC
This section contains the punishment of criminal conspiracy.
3. Sections 420 IPC
Committing fraud and coercing the transfer of property. — The punishment for dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property to another person, create, alter, or destroy a valuable security, or anything that is signed or sealed and can be converted into a valuable security, is imprisonment of either description for a term that may be as long as seven years, as well as being subject to a fine.
4. Sections 467 IPC
This section talks about forgery of valuable security, will, etc
5. Sections 468 IPC
Anyone who commits forgery with the intent that the 1 [document or electronic record fabricated] would be used to deceive is punishable by imprisonment of either kind for a term that may last up to seven years, as well as being subject to a fine.
6. Sections 471 IPC
Anyone who falsely represents as authentic any document or electronic record that they know or have reason to think is forged will be penalised in the same way as if they had fabricated the document or electronic record themselves.
Brief Facts
- Under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120-B of the I.P.C., one Ashok Kumar Jain (now deceased) had filed a FIR against fifteen identified accused individuals, including the petitioner and her spouse.
- A charge sheet was filed after a comprehensive investigation, the trial court took cognizance, and the trial is currently underway.
- However, the petitioner asked the High Court to order the investigative authorities to look into the case further in accordance with Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Questions Raised
- Whether the plaintiff’s opinion alone, based on the right of further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., when given to investigating agency, would be enough for them move application forwarded for further investigation.
Arguments Advanced by The Appellant
- The petitioner contended that the accusations contained in the FIR are wholly baseless, pointless, and unfounded.
- On September 10, 2010, the investigating officer filed a charge-sheet after gathering evidence against the accused during the course of the investigation.
- The petitioner had also claimed that there was evidence showing that the Khasra Plot, measuring 9 biswa, was recorded in the revenue record under the name of Allahdiyan as well as Khasra, which was listed under the name of Ms. Zindi and over which the petitioner claimed possession.
- The petitioner mentioned that it was under the influence and pressure of the informant, that the local police had filed charges.
- Additionally, the petitioner had spoken with other authorities like the Chief Secretary of the Government of the U.P.
- The petitioner had also submitted a thorough request for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Director General of Police, U.P. in Lucknow.
Arguments Advanced by The Respondent
- The respondent pointed out that the petitioner was clearly an accused party in Case Crime No. 286 of 2010 and that a charge-sheet had already been prepared.
- He added that it is only the investigating agency who has the authority to conduct additional research.
- Since the investigative agency had not requested additional inquiry, the sole goal of this petition was to postpone the ongoing procedures.
Analysis By The Court
- The Court read the petitioners plea and noted that she is an accused party in the case and that a charge sheet has been submitted.
- The Court further noted that the accused (petitioner) had requested guidance for additional inquiry, which is otherwise the investigative agency's right.
- The Court emphasised that the investigating body alone has the authority to choose how the investigation would be conducted, not the accused.
Conclusion
The investigation revealed the petitioner's involvement in the crime, according to the case's facts and an examination of the information entered into the record.
The accused cannot direct how an investigation should be conducted; that is solely the responsibility of the investigating body, as the court has also noted.
The petitioner was named in a charge sheet submitted by the investigating agency, which led to the court taking notice and starting the trial.
There was no compelling cause to pursue additional research.
As a result, the court denied the writ petition.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
