Accused Has No Right At Investigation Stage, He Can't Seek Further/ Reinvestigation Of Case U/S 173(8) CrPC: Allahabad HC

A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania observed thus while relying upon the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in the case of State vs Hemendhra Reddy | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 365 wherein it was held that a court is not obliged to hear the accused while considering an application for further investigation u/S. 173(8) CrPC.

The Court also referred to the Allahabad High Court's Judgment in Preeti Singh vs. State of UP 2023, which held that the accused has no right to be heard at the investigation stage.

In Preeti Singh's case, the Court explicitly said that an accused person has no right to a hearing at the investigation stage and that he/she can't question how the investigating agency was collecting the evidence.

The single judge was dealing with a Section 482 CrPC plea filed by Vishal Tripathi.

He had moved the Court challenging an order of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge POCSO Act, Ambedkar Nagar, rejecting his application seeking prayer to direct the IO to conduct a re-investigation/further investigation in the FIR lodged against him under Sections 147, 323, 325, 427, 354B and 452 IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.

The applicant also sought the prayer to direct for re-investigation/further investigation.

According to FIR, at about 10:00 PM on July 24, 2023, the accused applicant assaulted the informant, the son of the informant, and the daughter of the informant, in which all the alleged victims sustained injuries.

During the investigation, the I.O. took note of the statement of the informant's daughter, a minor, and added Section 354-B IPC, read with Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act and submitted the charge sheet.

In the background described above, the accused-applicant preferred an application under Section 173(8) CrPC, praying therein for re-investigation/further investigation questioning the date of the incident, the time of the incident, the date of medical examination, and the date of lodging of the FIR.

After the trial court rejected the said plea on the ground that a chargesheet in the case had been filed, he moved the HC to challenge the impugned order on the ground that the Magistrate is empowered to pass an order for re-investigation/further investigation u/S 173(8) CrPC even after submission of the charge sheet.

His counsel also argued that no such incidents occurred as alleged in the FIR and that the prosecution's story was entirely bogus and baseless, apparent from the discrepancies regarding the date and time of the incident indicated by the informant and witnesses of fact, particularly injured witnesses. As such, re-investigation/further investigation was sought in the instant case.

Against the backdrop of these facts and submissions, the Court, while relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court and Allahabad High Court, took into account the following facts to reject the applicant's petition:

• The accused had no right at the stage of the investigation
• The IO, after due investigation, including the collection of evidence, examination of various persons, and reduction of statements into writing, considered the contents of the same, including the FIR, medical report(s) of injured(s), and their statements, prepared the charge sheet and thereafter submitted it before the Court concerned.
• As indicated by the counsel for the applicant, the discrepancies related to date(s) and time would be considered by the trial Court at the stage of trial, and the same is not required for seeking re-investigation/further investigation in the present case.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner: Dinesh Kumar Mishra, Ripu Daman Shahi, Upendra Kumar Singh

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Rakesh Dwivedi

Case title – Vishal Tripathi vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home, Lko. And Others 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 516

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 516

Click Here To Read/Download Order