IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO.246 OF 2006 (U/s 482 of Cr.P.C.) Ram Swaroop Bacheti …………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand and another …………Respondents Dated: August 12, 2010 Mr. U.P.S. Negi, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State None for respondent no.2 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. By means of this petition, moved under Section 482 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.), the petitioner/applicant has sought quashing of the proceedings of S.T. No.17 of 2005, State v. Harish Chandra and others. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 7.7.1991 on the information of Smt. Mathura Devi, Patti Patwari Bharat Mohan Negi prepared the inquest report of deceased Smt. Indu Devi and sent the dead body for post-mortem and thereafter on 11.7.1991 he sent the inquest report, post-mortem report and other papers to Naib Tehsildar. On 15.7.1991, Naib Tehsildar directed the applicant, who was Supervisor Kanoongo, to investigate the case. (In Rural Hilly Areas of State of Uttarakhand, the Patwaris and certain Revenue Officials are being vested with police powers vide U.P. Govt. Notification No.494/VIII-418-16 dated 7.3.1916). On 1.8.1991, the applicant registered the case and started its investigation. On completion of investigation, the applicant submitted final 2 report on 28.6.1992, which was placed before District Magistrate. The District Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal cancelled the investigation conducted by the applicant and referred the matter to the Department of Home, State of U.P. Vide order dated 16.4.1993, Joint Secretary of the Home Department directed C.B.C.I.D. to investigate into the matter. Thereafter, C.B.C.I.D. conducted the investigation of the case and Vijay Singh Tyagi, Ashdu Lal Arya, K.K. Sharma, S.C. Pal, A.P. Verma, Yugveer Singh, Arun Kumar Pandey was entrusted with the investigation of the case. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officers recorded the statement of witnesses, namely, Mast Ram Sharma, Village Pradhan, Govind Ram, Shivanand, Manohari Lal, Surendra Singh, Smt. Baishakhi Devi, Parmanand Sharma, N.N. Srivastava, Additional State Medical Legal Expert, Lucknow and Dr. Rajendra Kumar Saxena. The Investigating Officers also recorded the statements of accused Smt. Mathura Devi and Ram Swaroop Bacheti (present applicant) and after completing the investigation, they filed the charge sheet against the accused persons Harish Chandra, Smt. Mathura Devi and Chandi Prasad u/Ss 304B, 376, 201 of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and also filed charge sheet against the applicant Ram Swaroop Bacheti and Bharat Mohan Negi u/Ss 217/218 of IPC. On the basis of this charge sheet, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pauri Garhwal, vide order dated 29.11.2004, took the cognizance of the offence against the applicant and others and thereafter criminal proceedings were initiated against him. Against the criminal proceedings, the applicant has preferred the present application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court. State has filed the supplementary counter affidavit of Sri Nakli Singh, Inspector, C.B.C.I.D., Dehradun in which it is stated that the said incident has taken place on 6.7.1991 and the FIR was got lodged on 1.8.1991 at 6 AM under Sections 376 and 302 of IPC. On 15.7.1991, the applicant Ram Swaroop Bacheti, Supervisor Kanoongo was appointed as 3 Investigating Officer of this case and on 1.8.1991 he started investigation and on completion of investigation he submitted final report on 28.6.1992. Thereafter, District Magistrate has submitted its report to the Secretary Home on 29.8.1992 regarding further investigation of the case and thereafter vide order dated 16.4.1993 of Joint Secretary, Home, Lucknow, the matter was transferred to C.B.C.I.D. Thereafter C.B.C.I.D. conducted the investigation of the case and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against Harish Chand, Smt. Mathura Devi and Chandi Prasad under Sections 304-B, 376 and 201 of IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibtion Act and against the applicant Ram Swaroop Bacheti and Bharat Mohan Negi u/Ss 217 and 218 of IPC. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the applicant has not conducted the investigation of the case properly and in order to provide advantage to the accused persons, he did not fairly conducted the investigation and also not collected important document like suicide note from the place of incident, which fact can be verified from the statement of Harish Chand and Dinesh Chand recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. (Statements of Harish Chand and Dinesh Chand are annexed as Annexure No.SCA1). From the a perusal of the charge sheet submitted by C.B.C.I.D. as well as the supplementary counter affidavit filed by State, prima facie it transpires that the applicant, being the Investigating Officer, has not fairly conducted the investigation of the case rather he conducted the investigation in order to provide advantage to the accused persons and to save them from the legal punishment of the offence which they have committed. During investigation, the applicant neither collected important document like suicide note from the place of occurrence nor he collected any other evidence so as to show the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged crime. In this way, it is clear that the applicant in collusion with the accused persons submitted the final report on the wrong facts and has thus knowingly disobeys the direction of the law. Thus, I am of the view that the offences punishable 4 under Sections 217 and 218 are prima facie made out against the applicant. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court, who will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in this application. The C482 application, being devoid of merit, is dismissed accordingly. Interim order dated 22.4.2006 stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) 12.8.2010 RG