Gurgaon Court: In a complaint filed under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (‘CrPC’) to take cognizance of offences committed by the vehicle owner under Section 279 and 304-A of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Vikrant J., admitted the complaint as an application under Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) and directed the police officer-in-charge to take quick steps to investigate further.
Background
On 05-06-2015, a First Information Report (‘FIR’) was lodged against the accused involved in the road accident under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC against an unknown vehicle. Later, due to lags in the investigation, the complainant filed an application under Section 156(3) of CrPC., in response to which a Status Report was demanded from the Investigating Officer (‘IO’) by the Court. However, an Untrace report was submitted by the IO which was accepted on 27-07-2016 without informing the complainant. The Court dismissed the complainant’s application of conducting a proper investigation.
The aggrieved complainant again filed an application under Section 173(8) of CrPC on 02-04-2018 which was also dismissed by the Court on the ground that the protest petition filed against the already accepted Untrace report was not maintainable as it would amount to review of the order. The Complainant was given liberty to approach the officer in-charge of the police station concerned to re-open the matter and investigate in furtherance of the clue available with him.
Analysis
After analysing the original Untrace report, the Court said that accepting the Untrace report by the Magistrate without giving notice to the complainant was unlawful. Further, accepting the report in no manner curtails the power of the Court to issue further directions under Section 173(8) CrPC if the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case so require. Such a direction would not amount to review of the order.
The Court while keeping in view that during the investigation, the complainant had lost his faith in the police administration due to which he had to approach the Court, cautioned that the Court would be failing in its duty if the faith of a citizen in the police administration, investigating agency of the State was not restored.
Further, the Court said it was a fit case where further investigation was needed. Thus, the Court noted that the protest petition filed under Section 200 of CrPC would not be feasible because the evidence is to be collected from different sources which was not possible for an individual. Therefore, the Court concluded that the complaint filed under Section 190 of CrPC would be maintainable as an application under Section 173(8) of CrPC.
Additionally, the Court directed the officer in charge to quickly investigate the matter further by taking into consideration the supplementary statements made by the complainant and the vehicle parts that were found at the spot of the accident.
The matter will next be taken up on 31-07-2023 for report of investigation
[Jitender Chaudhary v. Gyan Chand, 2023 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Haryana) 4, dOrder dated 18-07-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Counsel for the petitioner- Advocate Rohit Kumar;
Counsel for the respondent- Assistant Public Prosecutor Himanshu Yadav.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
