Hence, the appellantoriginal accused is before this Court.
That at the time of framing of the charge and companysidering the chargesheet papers, the learned Magistrate discharged the appellantoriginal accused vide order dated 05.02.2013.
After companysidering the material on record submitted along with the chargesheet, the learned Magistrate at the first instance discharged the accused.
That the FIR was lodged against the appellant herein original accused on 28.09.2007 being FIR No.
In the meantime, following the directions issued by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 05.02.2013, the District Investigating Unit, West District, Police Post MIG Flats, JBlock, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi issued summons dated 22.04.2013 under Section 160 of the CrPC.
Basically, the appellant herein challenged that part of the order dated 05.02.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate, by which the learned Magistrate observed and directed further investigation and also directed the investigating officer to submit the report.
3386 of 2013.
3.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with that part of the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 05.02.2013 by which the learned Magistrate directed further investigation and to submit the report, the appellantoriginal accused approached the High Court by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.
Thereafter, the matter before the learned Magistrate was at the stage of framing of the charge, as provided under Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC.
Learned Magistrate also observed and directed that the case requires further investigation to reach a logical companyclusion and the same be done responsibly and the report be filed on 11.04.2012 sic .
However, while discharging the accused and or after the accused was discharged, in the same order, the learned Magistrate directed the Additional Commissioner of Police West Delhi to make appreciation of quality of the investigation done in the case and to analyse the process of efficacy of sending any charge sheet before the prosecution branch for the purpose of scrutiny.
It is required to be numbered that, in the present case, the investigating officer after companycluding the investigation, submitted the report chargesheet before the learned Magistrate.
However, simultaneously, while discharging the accused, learned Magistrate also passed an order for further investigation and directed the investigating officer to further investigate in the matter and submit the report.
The appellant also challenged the said numberice summon issued under Section 160 of the CrPC.
That by the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said petition and has refused to interfere with the order dated 05.02.2013 passed by the learned Magistrate directing further investigation by observing that the investigation was a faulty investigation and or numberproper investigation was carried out on certain aspects and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in inquiring further investigation to reach to a logical companyclusion.
R. Shah, J. Leave granted.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal M. C. No.
3386 of 2013 by which the High Court has dismissed the said petition and has companyfirmed the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate West Delhi dated 05.02.2013, by which the learned Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.04.16 145928 IST Reason Magistrate ordered further investigation, the original accused has preferred the present appeal.
426/2007 at Police Station Janakpuri, Delhi for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
That on companypletion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed the chargesheet against the accusedappellant for the offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of the IPC.
