IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 699 of 2007 (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) Raju. ……….Applicant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and another. ....…. Respondents. Present : Sri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the applicant. Sri Nandan Arya, AGA for the State. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. By way of this petition moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer has been made to quash the chargesheet dated 09.04.2003 as well as proceedings of criminal case no. 895 of 2003 titled as State Vs. Raju and another under Section 306 IPC pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that deceased Dolly married with Raju (accused) on 25.03.1996. Within one and half year of her espousing, she breathed her last in the matrimonial house itself on dated 16.09.1997. The cognizance was taken by police itself on initiation of SHO A.S. Rawat, Police Station Raipur, Dehradun and First Information Report was lodged by SHO on 17.09.1997 under Section 306 IPC. The investigation was made resulting into submission of chargesheet no. 5 of 1998 on dated 30.01.1998 for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The Magistrate committed the case to court of Sessions bearing Sessions Trial No. 187 of 1998. 2 3. Accused persons were Raju (husband) and Kunti (mother-in-law). Defence counsel in the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Uttarakhand cases), Dehradun argued the matter for discharge of accused persons raising the plea that no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the accused persons. Pertaining to the adjudication of question in controversy Assistant District Government Counsel (Criminal) summoned the Investigating Officer Sub Inspector G.S. Kunwar in the court, who was probably been examined on 08.12.1999 without levelling the charge under Section 306 IPC against accused and the court found sundry irregularities committed by Investigating Officer G. S. Kunwar in his investigation, so he found the investigation incomplete and remitted the matter for further investigation to the Director General, CBCID and Deputy Inspector General, Police. 4. In compliance of court’s direction, the matter was further investigated by CB-CID and the chargesheet was again submitted on 09.04.2003 against accused persons for the same offence under Section 306 IPC. Upon submission of this chargesheet, cognizance was taken by Magistrate on 01.05.2003 but before the case could be committed to the court of Sessions, submission of this second chargesheet and order of cognizance were challenged by way of this petition and this Court was pleased to stay further proceedings in the matter and directed AGA to call Investigating Officer, who submitted the impugned chargesheet on dated 09.04.2003. Learned Single Judge of this Court in this order dated 25.09.2007 has asked the explanation of Investigating Officer, as to how chargesheet could be submitted when once accused persons have been acquitted in the same crime number. Counter affidavit of 3 Investigating Officer Vinod Chauhan, Inspector CBCID, Dehradun was filed in the matter. 5. The argument of learned counsel for the applicant that accused persons were acquitted by way of order dated 24.05.2000 is unacceptable and unsubstantial. For the reason that no accused can be acquitted by any criminal court without completion of trial, if Presiding Judge of the court mistakenly uses the word “acquittal” it cannot be meant and read as acquittal because the Code of Criminal Procedure does not permit so. Further, learned Sessions Judge in his impugned order dated 24.05.2000 has categorically stated that arguments were heard on charge and the order itself reveals that charge was not levelled by the time the order was passed. So in these circumstances, no question of acquittal arises, even if the word ‘acquittal’ has been used. Had the intention of learned Sessions Judge been of passing order of acquittal, then he could not have passed order for further investigation in the matter. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that evidence had been taken in the matter. This argument is also not acceptable because no evidence was taken at all. Simpliciter, Investigating Officer G.S. Kunwar was summoned in the court at the instance of ADGC to clarify irregularities in recording of statement of witnesses in the case diary and at the most, clarification offered by Investigating Officer might have been recorded. This recording of clarification by the Investigating Officer cannot be equated with recording of evidence after levelling of charge upon the accused persons. After further investigation, chargesheet was again submitted under Section 306 IPC because there were evidences of two witnesses, poison was found in the viscera report of the 4 deceased and suicide note left by deceased. These evidences are enough to show severe allegations against both the accused persons i.e. her husband and her mother-in-law. Evidentiary value of the statements of two witnesses as well as the viscera report nay suicide note can be evaluated only during the trial and this Court while hearing the petition under Section 482 cannot seize the matter for scrupulous analysis and evaluation of the entire evidence, which is the task of trial court. 7. The observation of learned Single Judge of this Court while granting the stay on 25.09.2007 appears to have been passed upon misleading having been swayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, so it is not worthy to be given any weight. 8. Be that as it may, course of trial cannot be made stunt, on the basis of ignorable technicalities because it is also settled position of law that any irregularities during the course of investigation cannot determine the fate of the trial, so this petition is bereft of any merits and liable to be dismissed. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The trial court is directed to proceed ahead with the trial very expeditiously taking note of the fact that the incident is more than a decade old and conclude the same preferably within eight months. 9. Let the information be sent to the court below. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 02.12.2011 SKS