Dharmaraj v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And
Case Details
Acts & Sections
: Sumit Kumar Srivastava, Piyush Pandey : G.A. Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh in Case No. 830/2020 (Dharamraj @ Dharmraj Versus State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 0097/2020, Under Section-392, 504 & 411 of I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station- Manikpur, District-Pratapgarh, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this petition. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 1 to initiate further investigation through C.B.C.I.D., Prayagraj of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0097/2020, Under Section-392, 504 & 411 I.P.C., Police Station-Manikpur, District- Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice." the present application the applicant/accused 3. By means of namely Dharma Raj Saroj alias Dharmaraj has approached this Court with a prayer which relates to further investigation through CBCID Prayagraj in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 0097 of 2020, under Sections 392/504/411 IPC, Police Station-Manikpur, District-Pratapgarh as also to quash the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by Additonal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kunda Pratapgarh (in short 'Magistrate') in Case No. 830/2020 (Dharamraj @ Dharmraj Versus State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 0097/2020, Under Section-392/504/411 I.P.C. Police Station-Manikpur, District-Pratapgarh, whereby the Magistrate rejected the application preferred by the applicant/accused-Dharma Raj Saroj alias Dharmaraj. The order dated 25.03.2025 reads as under:- 2 A482 No. 10040 of 2025 "१.) प्ऴावली आदेशाथर् िनयत है। ्ऺाथर् के िव्षान अिधव्वा को हस्तगत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ पर सुना जा चुका है। २.) ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ के माध्यम से यािचत है िक, मुकदमा उपरो्व की अि्षम िववेचना सी.बी.सी.आई. डी. से कराया जाय। ३.) आधार याचना सं्षेप में इस ्ऺकार है िक, ्ऺाथर्/अिभयु्व ्षाम जाखमई, थाना मािनकपुर, जनपद ्ऺतापगढ़ का मूल िनवासी है और सीमा सुर्षा बल में बतौर आर्षी कायर्रत है। ्ऺाथर् के गाँव के पूवर् ्ऺधान ने सािजशन िदनांक १४.०५.२०२० को मुकदमा उपरो्व अंतगर्त धारा ३९२, ५०४ एवं ४११ भारतीय दण्ड िवधान में पंजीकृ त कराया था िजसमें आरोपप्ऴ न्यायालय में ्ऺेिषत िकया गया है। ्ऺाथर् के गाँव की राजनीितक ्ऺित्षंि्षता में फजर् ढंग से फँ साया गया है। यह िक उपरो्व कारण से िनष्प्ष िववेचना कराया जाना िनतांत आवश्यक है। ४.) ्ऺाथर्/अिभयु्व की ओर से अपनी याचना के समथर्न में िनम्निलिखत िविध ्िवस्थाएं ्ऺस्तुत की गयी हैं, िजनका ससम्मान अवलोकन िकया गया। यथा M/S Jayant Vitamins Ltd. vs. Chaitanyakumar And Another on 6 August, 1992, AIR 1992 SC 1930.; Surindara Nath State of Raj And Ors. On 24 February, 2006, 2006 CRILJ 2716, RLW.; Pannalal Sahgal Vs. Dr. Veer Bhan Verma and Others (1991) 12 MP CK 0021.; Anil Kumar vs State of Haryana And Ors on 5 July, 2016 (Crl. Misc. No. M-21042 of 2015 (O&M).; ५.) अि्षम िववेचना की बाबत माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद ने िवशाल ि्ऴपाठी बनाम उ्तर ्ऺदेश राज्य जिरए ्ऺमुख सिचव गृह, लखनऊ व अन्य Neutral Citation No.2024: A.H.C. LKO-54823 के मामले में िनणर्यज िविधयों, यथा- a.) Janta Dal Vs H.S. Choudhary (1991) 3 SCC 756. b.) Union of India vs W.N. Chadha (1993) Supp (4) SCC 260. с.) CBI Rajesh Gandhi (1996) 11 SCC 253. d.) Divine Retreat Center vs State of Kerala (2008) 3 SCC 542. e.) CCI vs Sail (2010) 10 SCC 744. f.) Narmada Bai vs State of Gujrat (2011) 5 SCC 79. g.) Mayawati vs Union of India (2012) 8 SCC 106. h.) Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki vs State of Gujrat (2014) 4 SCC 626. 1.) Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt vs Union of India (2016)1 SCC 1. j.) Romila Thapar vs Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 75. k.) State vs Hemendhra Reddy (2023) SCC online SC 515. 1.) Preeti Singh vs State of U.P. (2023) SCC Online All. 1410 का अवलम्ब लेते हुए पिरच्छेद ३६ में िनम्न अिभमत ्ि्व िकया है, यथा- (T)his Court has no hesitation to say that an accused has no right at the stage of investigation. Thus the application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. preferred by the accused, applicant herein, for re-investigation itself was not entertainable. उपरो्व न्याियक पूवरॏि्वयों के ्ऺकाश में यह सुस्थािपत है िक अिभयु्व न तो संिहता १९७३ की धारा-१७३ (८) में िववेचना पिरणाम में हस्त्षेप करने का अिधकारी है, न ही अिभयु्व की ्ऺेरणा पर अि्षम िववेचना का आदेश िकया जाना िविधवत् है। साथ ही अिभयु्व को िविनिद्ि अन्वेषण ऐजेंसी से िववेचना कराए जाने का अिधकार भी ्ऺाप्त नहीं है। ऐसे में हस्तगत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ बलहीन होने के कारण स्वीकार िकए जाने योग्य नहीं है। आदेश तदनुसार है- आदेश हस्तगत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ खािरज िकया जाता है। प्ऴावली वास्ते अि्षम कायर्वाही िदनांक २४.०४. २०२५ को िनयत की जाती है।"
4. The order of Magistrate indicate that the application has been rejected after taking note of the principle settled on the issue according to which accused has no right at the stage of investigation as also that application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was preferred by the applicant/accused with a prayer for re-investigation with regard to allegations levelled in the FIR in issue, detailed above.
5. This Court is of the view that Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. It is for the reason(s) that the accused has no right with regard to "further investigation or re- 3 A482 No. 10040 of 2025 investigation". (See: Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0858/2009 : 2009: INSC: 711 : (2009) 6 SCC 332; Vinay Tyagi versus Irshad Ali., MANU/SC/1101/2012 : 2012: INSC: 587 : (2013) 5 SCC 762; Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Hemendhra Reddy & Another. Etc., MANU/SC/0486/2023; Preeti Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 1410; Romila Thapar vs. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 75 and State vs. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 515), and in case the charges have been framed.
6. It is accordingly dismissed. Costs made easy. December 10, 2025 Jyoti/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
: Sumit Kumar Srivastava, Piyush Pandey : G.A. Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. The present application has been filed for the following main relief:- "WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 25.03.2025 passed by the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kunda, Pratapgarh in Case No. 830/2020 (Dharamraj @ Dharmraj Versus State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 0097/2020, Under Section-392, 504 & 411 of I.P.C. pertaining to Police Station- Manikpur, District-Pratapgarh, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this petition. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 1 to initiate further investigation through C.B.C.I.D., Prayagraj of F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0097/2020, Under Section-392, 504 & 411 I.P.C., Police Station-Manikpur, District- Pratapgarh, in the interest of justice." the present application the applicant/accused 3. By means of namely Dharma Raj Saroj alias Dharmaraj has approached this Court with a prayer which relates to further investigation through CBCID Prayagraj in connection with FIR/Case Crime No. 0097 of 2020, under Sections 392/504/411 IPC, Police Station-Manikpur, District-Pratapgarh as also to quash the order dated 25.03.2025 passed by Additonal Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kunda Pratapgarh (in short 'Magistrate') in Case No. 830/2020 (Dharamraj @ Dharmraj Versus State of U.P.) arising out of Case Crime No. 0097/2020, Under Section-392/504/411 I.P.C. Police Station-Manikpur, District-Pratapgarh, whereby the Magistrate rejected the application preferred by the applicant/accused-Dharma Raj Saroj alias Dharmaraj. The order dated 25.03.2025 reads as under:- 2 A482 No. 10040 of 2025 "१.) प्ऴावली आदेशाथर् िनयत है। ्ऺाथर् के िव्षान अिधव्वा को हस्तगत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ पर सुना जा चुका है। २.) ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ के माध्यम से यािचत है िक, मुकदमा उपरो्व की अि्षम िववेचना सी.बी.सी.आई. डी. से कराया जाय। ३.) आधार याचना सं्षेप में इस ्ऺकार है िक, ्ऺाथर्/अिभयु्व ्षाम जाखमई, थाना मािनकपुर, जनपद ्ऺतापगढ़ का मूल िनवासी है और सीमा सुर्षा बल में बतौर आर्षी कायर्रत है। ्ऺाथर् के गाँव के पूवर् ्ऺधान ने सािजशन िदनांक १४.०५.२०२० को मुकदमा उपरो्व अंतगर्त धारा ३९२, ५०४ एवं ४११ भारतीय दण्ड िवधान में पंजीकृ त कराया था िजसमें आरोपप्ऴ न्यायालय में ्ऺेिषत िकया गया है। ्ऺाथर् के गाँव की राजनीितक ्ऺित्षंि्षता में फजर् ढंग से फँ साया गया है। यह िक उपरो्व कारण से िनष्प्ष िववेचना कराया जाना िनतांत आवश्यक है। ४.) ्ऺाथर्/अिभयु्व की ओर से अपनी याचना के समथर्न में िनम्निलिखत िविध ्िवस्थाएं ्ऺस्तुत की गयी हैं, िजनका ससम्मान अवलोकन िकया गया। यथा M/S Jayant Vitamins Ltd. vs. Chaitanyakumar And Another on 6 August, 1992, AIR 1992 SC 1930.; Surindara Nath State of Raj And Ors. On 24 February, 2006, 2006 CRILJ 2716, RLW.; Pannalal Sahgal Vs. Dr. Veer Bhan Verma and Others (1991) 12 MP CK 0021.; Anil Kumar vs State of Haryana And Ors on 5 July, 2016 (Crl. Misc. No. M-21042 of 2015 (O&M).; ५.) अि्षम िववेचना की बाबत माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद ने िवशाल ि्ऴपाठी बनाम उ्तर ्ऺदेश राज्य जिरए ्ऺमुख सिचव गृह, लखनऊ व अन्य Neutral Citation No.2024: A.H.C. LKO-54823 के मामले में िनणर्यज िविधयों, यथा- a.) Janta Dal Vs H.S. Choudhary (1991) 3 SCC 756. b.) Union of India vs W.N. Chadha (1993) Supp (4) SCC 260. с.) CBI Rajesh Gandhi (1996) 11 SCC 253. d.) Divine Retreat Center vs State of Kerala (2008) 3 SCC 542. e.) CCI vs Sail (2010) 10 SCC 744. f.) Narmada Bai vs State of Gujrat (2011) 5 SCC 79. g.) Mayawati vs Union of India (2012) 8 SCC 106. h.) Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki vs State of Gujrat (2014) 4 SCC 626. 1.) Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt vs Union of India (2016)1 SCC 1. j.) Romila Thapar vs Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 75. k.) State vs Hemendhra Reddy (2023) SCC online SC 515. 1.) Preeti Singh vs State of U.P. (2023) SCC Online All. 1410 का अवलम्ब लेते हुए पिरच्छेद ३६ में िनम्न अिभमत ्ि्व िकया है, यथा- (T)his Court has no hesitation to say that an accused has no right at the stage of investigation. Thus the application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. preferred by the accused, applicant herein, for re-investigation itself was not entertainable. उपरो्व न्याियक पूवरॏि्वयों के ्ऺकाश में यह सुस्थािपत है िक अिभयु्व न तो संिहता १९७३ की धारा-१७३ (८) में िववेचना पिरणाम में हस्त्षेप करने का अिधकारी है, न ही अिभयु्व की ्ऺेरणा पर अि्षम िववेचना का आदेश िकया जाना िविधवत् है। साथ ही अिभयु्व को िविनिद्ि अन्वेषण ऐजेंसी से िववेचना कराए जाने का अिधकार भी ्ऺाप्त नहीं है। ऐसे में हस्तगत ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ बलहीन होने के कारण स्वीकार िकए जाने योग्य नहीं है। आदेश तदनुसार है- आदेश हस्तगत ्ऺाथर्नाप्ऴ खािरज िकया जाता है। प्ऴावली वास्ते अि्षम कायर्वाही िदनांक २४.०४. २०२५ को िनयत की जाती है।"
4. The order of Magistrate indicate that the application has been rejected after taking note of the principle settled on the issue according to which accused has no right at the stage of investigation as also that application under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. was preferred by the applicant/accused with a prayer for re-investigation with regard to allegations levelled in the FIR in issue, detailed above.
5. This Court is of the view that Magistrate has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. It is for the reason(s) that the accused has no right with regard to "further investigation or re- 3 A482 No. 10040 of 2025 investigation". (See: Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0858/2009 : 2009: INSC: 711 : (2009) 6 SCC 332; Vinay Tyagi versus Irshad Ali., MANU/SC/1101/2012 : 2012: INSC: 587 : (2013) 5 SCC 762; Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Hemendhra Reddy & Another. Etc., MANU/SC/0486/2023; Preeti Singh v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine All 1410; Romila Thapar vs. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 75 and State vs. Hemendhra Reddy, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 515), and in case the charges have been framed.
6. It is accordingly dismissed. Costs made easy. December 10, 2025 Jyoti/- (Saurabh Lavania,J.) JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench