Dismissed

Kapil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2023A482/3284/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant, an accused, sought to quash the trial court's order rejecting a request for directions to the Investigating Officer to view CCTV footage during investigation. The High Court observed that the Investigating Agency is free to conduct investigation in its own manner and cannot be directed otherwise. Consequently, the application was dismissed as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

The application to quash the order directing the Investigating Officer to view CCTV footage was dismissed.

Kapil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3284 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Kapil Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Mahendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

List revised.

¶6

Heard Sri Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Arti Agarwal, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Kapil Kumar with the following prayers :-

¶8

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Gunnaur, District Sambhal in Case No. 148 of 2022 (State vs. Omprakash and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 247 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Sation Gunnaur, District Sambhal.

¶9

It is, further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 21.11.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Gunnaur, District Sambhal in Case No. 148 of 2022 (State vs. Omprakash and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 247 of 2022, under Sections 498A, 354, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Sation Gunnaur, District Sambhal during pendency of the present criminal application before this Hon'ble Court or to pass such any other and further order which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that a CCTV footage is needed to be viewed by the Investigating Officer which is important for fair investigation. It is argued that although an application dated 30.9.2022/18.10.2022 was moved before the trial court but the trial court has rejected the same vide its order dated 21.11.2022 which is impugned herein. It is argued that the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as during fair investigation the Investigation Officer is expected to view the

¶11

said CCTV footage which would give a lead in the present matter and for fair investigation collection of the said CCTV footage and making it a part of case diary is a must. It is argued that a direction be issued for the Investigating Officer for viewing the said CCTV footage and including the same in investigation as the investigation is still pending.

¶12

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer.

¶13

After having heard learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicant is accused in the present case. The applicant has filed an application before the trial court for directing the Investigating Officer to view and include the said CCTV footage during investigation and make it a part of investigation. It is trite law that the Investigating Officer is free to conduct investigation in his own manner and he cannot be directed to conduct investigation in a particular matter and of a particular fact. The Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and Another : (2003) 6 SCC 195 has held that the Investigating Agency is free in conducting investigation in his own manner and giving any direction to investigate the matter in a particular manner would fall in the category of interference in investigation.

¶14

In view of the same, the present application does not call for any interference and is devoid of any merit and as such is dismissed.

¶15

Office is directed to communicate this order to concerned court within one week from today.

¶16

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 21.2.2023 Naresh

¶18

Digitally signed by :- NARESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kapil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapil Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sampann Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prem Chandra Patel Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Asgar Ali and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Bharose Vs State

Jishan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Altaf Alias Multaz Vs State of U.P. and Another