Sujauddin @ Suja and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Mohd. Salman, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.

¶10

Instant application has been filed with prayer to quash impugned order dated 8.4.2025 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, District-Unnao, in Misc. Case No. 14 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 377 of 2024, State Vs. Niyajuddin and Others, registered in Police StationBangarmau, District-Unnao, so for relates to the petitioners.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the learned trial court on application dated 10.01.2025 moved by the witness has wrongly passed the order on 08.04.2025 for re-investigation, which is impermissible as per the settled law. He submitted that further investigation is permissible, whereas, the re-investigation is barred by the provisions as well as the settled law for trial court.

¶12

In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the cases of Siya Ram Son of Het Ram V. State of U.P. And Another reported in 2013(5) All Lj 71 and has referred paragraph 6 and 7 of the aforesaid judgment:-

¶13

""6. I have considered the said argument and perused the materials on record including the impugned order. I have also perused the aforesaid verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in Ramachandran v. Udhayakumar (AIR 2008 SC 3102) (supra).

¶14

NA528 No. 1118 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

The Hon'ble Apex Court in para 6 of the aforesaid verdict has observed as under:

¶17

"(6) At this juncture it would be necessary to take note of section 173 of the Code. From a plain reading of the above section it is evident that even after completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has right to further investigate under sub-section (8), but not fresh investigation or reinvestigation. This was highlighted by this Court in K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala and ors., (1998 (5) SCC 223: (AIR 1998 SC 2001)). It was. inter alia, observed as follows:"

¶18

"24. The dictionary meaning of "further" (when used as an adjective) is "additional; more; supplemental" "further" investigation therefore is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation or reinvestigation to be started ab initio wiping out the earlier investigation altogether. In drawing this conclusion we have also drawn inspiration from the fact that sub-section (8) clearly envisages that on completion of further investigation the investigating agency has to forward to the Magistrate a "further report or reports and not fresh report or reports regarding the "further" evidence obtained during such investigation."

¶19

7. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the police has right to further investigate the matter under sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. even after completion of investigation under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code but no fresh investigation or re-investigation.""

¶20

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the case of the present applicants is squarely covered with the ration of the judgment above said, thus, submission is that the impugned order may be quashed.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the contentions aforesaid and submitted that there is technical error in some places of the order, the trial court has considered the case as for direction for further investigation, though in the order clause it has incorrectly been mentioned as re-investigation.

¶22

Upon considering the submissions of counsel for the parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires from the order impugned dated 08.04.2025 that on application dated 10.01.2025 moved by one of the witness, the trial court directed for re-investigation in the matter. The application made by the witness is also apparent that a request is made to the trial court for re-investigation in the matter. The law is settled in this context and issue that the trial court cannot direct for re-investigation, rather for further investigation. The Apex Court in the case of Siya Ram Son of Het

¶23

NA528 No. 1118 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

Ram(Supra) has held that the further investigation is impermissible.

¶26

In view of the above, the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned trial court is faulted, thus, the same is hereby quashed alongwith the consequential order, if any.

¶27

The matter is hereby remitted back to the trial court concerned to pass a fresh order, within period of six weeks, in accordance with law.

¶28

The present application is hereby disposed of. April 20, 2026 Mayank

¶29

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MAYANK PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sujauddin @ Suja and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujauddin @ Suja and 6 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Pawan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Shyam Sundar @ Golu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Premchand @ Pradeep Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Mansoor vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Imran Gaji vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko.