IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 93 of 2003 Hem Raj Singh. ……… Revisionist. Versus District and Sessions Judge, Haridwar & others. ……… Respondents. Mr. Ritesh Bahri with Mr. Ajay Kumar Bansal, Mr. M.S. Tyagi, Mr. Rajendra Singh and Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocates for the revisionist. Mr. P.N. Mishra, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.N. Tripathy, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, A.G.A. for the State / respondent No. 5. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) In the instant case, a First Information Report was lodged by a person at Delhi alleging that his brother has been murdered by five persons. Those five persons were named in the First Information Report. Subsequently, another First Information Report was filed in Haridwar, where it was alleged that the person, who lodged the first First Information Report, fired upon one of those five persons named in the First Information Report and the person concerned, who was fired upon, received dangerous injuries, which may result in death. The later First Information Report was investigated into, whereupon, a police report, in final form, was filed. The first court did not accept the police report in final form and, on the contrary, on the basis of the materials supplied along with the police report, took cognizance. The accused persons, then, approached the first revisional court against the order of the first court and succeeded before the first revisional court. The person, who lodged the First Information Report, has filed the present Revision Application. 2. It appears that the principal reason for the police to file a report in final form was acceptance by the police of the statements made by persons said to have been engaged as Personal Security Officers of the person accused in the said First Information Report to the effect that, as on the date of the incident, the person accused did not leave Delhi. As against this, there was no other material on record of the police report suggesting presence of the accused at Haridwar on the date of the incident. The first court, while taking cognizance, felt that the police erroneously believed 2 the said statements of the said persons. Principally for that reason, the first revisional court interfered with the order taking cognizance by the first court. While, however, doing so, the first revisional court also dwelt into matters, which it could not dwell into at the stage of taking cognizance of an offence. I think, inasmuch as the police records did not contain any material to show that, in fact, those persons were appointed as Personal Security Officers and, in fact, they were deputed to discharge duties at the time and that date when they supposed to have discharged duties as such Personal Security Officers of the accused persons, it was appropriate on the part of the first court, instead of accepting the report in final form, to direct the police to make further investigation and to file a supplementary report. 3. In the circumstances, I allow the Revision Application and, thereby, while set aside the order of the first revisional court, I also set aside the order of the first court and direct the police report, filed in final form, to be kept on record with a direction upon CBCID to further investigate into the matter and to submit a supplementary police report as quickly as possible, but not later than six months from the date of service of a copy of this order upon CBCID. Let the report, to be submitted pursuant to this order, be submitted by an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police. (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 20.08.2011 G