Ravi Shankar And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another

AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 12592 of 2024
Ravi Shankar and 2 others
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and another
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Gulab Chandra Tiwari, Uday
Shankar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dilip Kumar Dubey, G.A., Prabhat
Kumar Tiwari
Court No. - 93
HON'BLE SANTOSH RAI, J.
1.Heard Sri Gulab Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants,
Sri Prabhat Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and
learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (1) of S.C.& S.T. Act has
been filed against order dated 16.01.2019 passed by  Special Judge
(SC/ST) (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jaunpur in Session Trial No
18/2019 (State Vs. Devraj & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 188
of 2016, under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) (x)
SC/ST Act, P.S. Machhalishahar, District-Jaunpur whereby cognizance
has been taken against the appellants and appellants have been
summoned.
3. Tersely, opposite party no. 2 registered an  F.I.R. against five accused
persons at P.S. Machhalishahar. Following the initial F.I.R. against the

2
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
appellants, the investigating officer recorded witness statements under
Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and initially compiled a final report on June 9,
2016, concluding that no offences were made out against the appellants;
this report was submitted before the superior officer. In the light of
direction of superior police officer, the investigating officer forwarded
Charge Sheet No. 27/2017 on May 3, 2017 against four persons under
Sections 323, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act,
noting that the first accused, Devraj, had passed away.
4. Briefly, the grounds of the appeal are that the impugned order dated
16.01.2019 passed  Special Judge (SC/ST) (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, Jaunpur  is totally unjust improper  and is based upon surmises and
conjunctures which is not supported by any documentary evidence.  
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court has
wrongly taken cognizance in this case whereas during course of
investigation, the investigating officer has sent charge-sheet before the
Superior Police Authority. The Superior Police Authority has not
empowered to issue direction for further investigation as provided under
section 173(8) CRPC. On the basis of direction given by the Superior
Police Authority, charge-sheet was filed whereas, initial FR was
submitted, and he draw attention of the Court towards the SCD parcha
III, which is annexed as Annexure 2.
6. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed the
submission of learned counsel for the appellants, and submitted that the
trial court has not committed any legal error by taking cognizance. The
final report was not submitted before the court. Admittedly, after
registering of FIR, the investigation has been handed over to I.O. He
conducted investigation and recorded statement of some of the
witnesses. As per CD III, which is annexed as Annexure 2, it appears
that final report no.24 of 2016 was prepared on 09.06.2016, and the
investigation was closed, by I.O. Thereafter the Superior

3
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
Authority/Additional S.P. Gramin, Jaunpur, returned along with
instructions. In the light of instructions received through Superior Police
Authority, the I.O. again conduct the further investigation and submitted
the charge-sheet. Thereafter, cognizance was taken in this case.
7. In the light of submission of learned counsel for both the parties, in
this regard, it would be just, and proper to refer the provision of Section
36 CrPC/Section 30 BNSS "Police officers superior in rank to an officer
in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers throughout
the local area to which they are appointed." Consequently, the
Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of Police, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Circle Officer and other superior police
officers possess co-extensive powers of investigation and are competent
to supervise, direct or themselves undertake investigation in accordance
with law.
8. The legal position has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P., (2026) 5 SCC 308, particularly in
paragraphs 28 to 32 as under :-
28. The issue regarding the procedure to be followed for
directing further investigation in a case has been dealt with by
this Court in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762,
wherein this Court while dealing with the contours of Section
173(8)CrPC relating to further investigation, propounded that
the police ought to follow the procedure of seeking permission
from the Court to conduct “further investigation” and file a
supplementary charge-sheet. The relevant paragraphs from the
judgment are reproduced as under : (SCC p. 790, para 40)
“40. Having analysed the provisions of the Code and the
various judgments as aforeindicated, we would state the
following conclusions in regard to the powers of a
Magistrate in terms of Section 173(2) read with Section
173(8) and Section 156(3) of the Code:
40.1. The Magistrate has no power to direct
“reinvestigation” or “fresh investigation” (de novo) in the
case initiated on the basis of a police report.
40.2. A Magistrate has the power to direct “further
investigation” after filing of a police report in terms of
Section 173(6) of the Code.

4
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
40.3. The view expressed in sub-para 40.2 above is in
conformity with the principle of law stated in Bhagwant
Singh case [Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police, (1985) 2
SCC 537 : 1985 SCC (Cri) 267] by a three-Judge Bench
and thus in conformity with the doctrine of precedent.
40.4. Neither the scheme of the Code nor any specific
provision therein bars exercise of such jurisdiction by the
Magistrate. The language of Section 173(2) cannot be
construed so restrictively as to deprive the Magistrate of
such powers particularly in face of the provisions of
Section 156(3) and the language of Section 173(8) itself. In
fact, such power would have to be read into the language
of Section 173(8).
40.5. The Code is a procedural document, thus, it must
receive a construction which would advance the cause of
justice and legislative object sought to be achieved. It does
not stand to reason that the legislature provided power of
further investigation to the police even after filing a report,
but intended to curtail the power of the court to the extent
that even where the facts of the case and the ends of justice
demand, the court can still not direct the investigating
agency to conduct further investigation which it could do
on its own.
40.6. It has been a procedure of propriety that the police
has to seek permission of the court to continue “further
investigation” and file supplementary charge-sheet. This
approach has been approved by this Court in a number of
judgments. This as such would support the view that we
are taking in the present case.”
(emphasis supplied)
29. In this very judgment, this Court while noting that although
there is no explicit mandate under Section 173(8) CrPC to seek
leave of the Court before conducting further investigation,
nevertheless, over the time, a practice has been developed to
seek permission of the Court. Therefore, the practice of seeking
the leave of the Court will have to be read into the provisions of
Section 173(8) CrPC, and it is essentially a prerequisite for
directing further investigation. This Court therein held as
follows : (Vinay Tyagi case [Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5
SCC 762 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 557] , SCC p. 793, paras 49-50)
“49. Now, we may examine another significant aspect which
is how the provisions of Section 173(8) have been understood
and applied by the courts and investigating agencies. It is true
that though there is no specific requirement in the provisions
of Section 173(8) of the Code to conduct “further
investigation” or file supplementary report with the leave of
the court, the investigating agencies have not only understood
but also adopted it as a legal practice to seek permission of
the courts to conduct “further investigation” and file

5
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
“supplementary report” with the leave of the court. The
courts, in some of the decisions, have also taken a similar
view. The requirement of seeking prior leave of the court to
conduct “further investigation” and/or to file a
“supplementary report” will have to be read into, and is a
necessary implication of the provisions of Section 173(8) of
the Code. The doctrine of contemporanea expositio will fully
come to the aid of such interpretation as the matters which
are understood and implemented for a long time, and such
practice that is supported by law should be accepted as part of
the interpretative process.
50. Such a view can be supported from two different points of
view: firstly, through the doctrine of precedent, as
aforenoticed, since quite often the courts have taken such a
view, and, secondly, the investigating agencies which have
also so understood and applied the principle. The matters
which are understood and implemented as a legal practice
and are not opposed to the basic rule of law would be good
practice and such interpretation would be permissible with
the aid of doctrine of contemporanea expositio. Even
otherwise, to seek such leave of the court would meet the
ends of justice and also provide adequate safeguard against a
suspect/accused.”
(emphasis supplied)
30. The proposition of the law laid down in Vinay Tyagi [Vinay
Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri)
557] has been further affirmed by the three-Judge Bench of this
Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of
Gujarat [Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019)
17 SCC 1 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 228] .
31. This Court has dealt with a similar situation
in Peethambaran v. State of Kerala [Peethambaran v. State of
Kerala, (2024) 16 SCC 65] , wherein the District Police Chief
i.e. Superintendent of Police, ordered further investigation. This
Court therein, while quashing the order passed by the District
Police Chief, held that the power to order further investigation
rests either with the Magistrate concerned or a higher court, but
not with the investigating agency. The relevant paragraphs from
the judgment are reproduced as follows : (SCC pp. 74 & 77,
paras 19-20 & 28)
“19. The Chief Police Officer of a district is the
Superintendent of Police who is an officer of the Indian
Police Service. Needless to state, an order from the District
Police Chief is not the same as an order issued by the
Magistrate concerned. Referring to Vinay Tyagi [Vinay
Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri)
557] , this Court in Devendra Nath Singh v. State of
Bihar [Devendra Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, (2023) 1
SCC 48 : (2023) 1 SCC (Cri) 270] noted that there is no

6
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
specific requirement to seek leave of the court for further
investigation or to file a supplementary report but the
investigating agencies, have not only understood it to be so
but have also adopted the same as a legal requirement. The
doctrine of contemporanea expositio aids such an
interpretation of matters which have been long understood
and implemented in a particular manner to be accepted into
the interpretive process. In other words, the requirement of
permission for further investigation or to file a
supplementary report is accepted within law and is therefore
required to be complied with.
20. In the facts at hand, it is clear that such a permission
was never taken, granted or ordered. Consequently, FR-II is
without basis. In FR-I it has been stated that in the absence
of any documents in respect of the financial transactions,
the instant case may be treated as a false case. This, then
would necessarily imply that after due investigation
conducted by a duly authorised person, the conclusion is
that the ingredients of the section mentioned in the FIR
have not been met and no case is made out.
28. In terms of second question, the above discussion makes
clear that the District Police Chief, Kottayam could not
have ordered further investigation, as that power rests either
with the Magistrate concerned or with a higher court and
not with an investigating agency.”
(emphasis supplied)
32. In light of the legal position as settled by this Court through
the above judgments, it is safe to say that the power to direct
further investigation in a case rests solely at the discretion of the
Magistrate/Court concerned. In the event, the
police/investigating agency is of the opinion that further
investigation is necessary in any particular case to cull out
complete facts and truth in the case, it is binding upon them to
file an appropriate application before the Magistrate/Court,
without directing an order for further investigation by
themselves. Once such an application is filed by the
investigating agency, the Magistrate/Court would apply its
judicial mind, in light of the facts and circumstances of the
particular case and the reasons demonstrated by the
investigating agency, in order to exercise its discretion for
exercise of its power to decide whether or not further
investigation is to be ordered under the purview of Section
173(8)CrPC.
9. A superior police officer may himself investigate or supervise
investigation under Section 36 CrPC /Section 30 BNSS.  Only the officer
who conducts the investigation (or a superior officer who has himself

7
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
taken over the investigation) is competent to submit the police report
before the Magistrate. The report represents the opinion of the
Investigating Officer. A superior administrative authority cannot compel
the I.O to file a charge-sheet if the investigation discloses no offence.
Although, CrPC/BNSS does not expressly use the words "return the case
diary", supervisory power necessarily includes the authority to examine
investigation and require further investigation before approval of the
final report. Thus, the following principles emerge; examine case diary,
point out defects, direct examination of omitted witnesses, direct
collection of scientific evidence, direct recovery of documents, require
compliance with legal provisions, send the file back to I.O for
completion of investigation. This is part of ‘supervisory jurisdiction’
flowing from Section 36 CrPC/Section 30 B.N.S.S. and UP Police
Regulations. There is provisions in Para 109 and 122 of UP Police
Regulation  regarding completion of investigation and submission of
charge-sheet or final report. However, the superior officer cannot
substitute his own opinion merely to compel filing of charge-sheet
without either, taking over investigation himself; or directing lawful
instructions to the IO.
10. There is difference between ‘Supervisory Power and Investigating
Power’. Superior Officer may inspect investigation, issue instructions,
return diary, monitor investigation. But ordinarily cannot dictate
findings, fabricate evidence, compel filing of charge-sheet contrary to
investigation. If he wishes to alter conclusions substantially, he should
himself exercise powers under Section 36 CrPC/Section 30 BNSS and
conduct investigation. Thus, Legal Position is that the scheme of the
Code of Criminal Procedure recognizes that, before the police report
under Section 173(2) CrPC/Section 193(3) BNSS is submitted before the
Magistrate, the investigation remains under the administrative and
statutory supervision of superior police officers. These provisions
regulate the manner in which the police report is finalized and ensure
that the investigation is complete, fair and legally sustainable before it

8
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
reaches the Court. Section 36 CrPC/Section 30 BNSS empowers police
officers superior in rank to the Officer-in-Charge of a police station to
exercise the same investigative powers within their territorial
jurisdiction. Consequently, officers such as the Superintendent of Police,
Additional Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police
and Circle Officer are competent to supervise the investigation, examine
the case diary, and ensure that all relevant facts have been properly
investigated.
11. The supervisory authority of superior police officers is also reflected
in the U.P. Police Regulations, particularly Chapter XI relating to the
duties of superior officers. Before a final report or charge-sheet is
forwarded to the Court, the superior officer is entitled to scrutinize the
case diary, identify deficiencies in the investigation, and return the
record to the Investigating Officer with appropriate directions for
conducting further investigation. Such directions may include
examination of omitted witnesses, collection of additional documentary
or scientific evidence, recovery of relevant material, removal of
procedural defects, and compliance with statutory requirements. These
‘supervisory directions’ are intended to ensure that the investigation is
complete, impartial and legally sound before the police report is
submitted before the Magistrate. However, the supervisory jurisdiction
of a superior police officer is distinct from the statutory function of the
Investigating Officer. A superior officer cannot merely substitute his own
opinion or compel the Investigating Officer to submit a charge-sheet
contrary to the latter's independent assessment of the evidence. If the
superior officer proposes to alter the conclusions of the investigation
substantially, he must himself assume the investigation by exercising
powers under Section 36 CrPC/Section 30 BNSS. Thus, while
supervision over the investigation is permissible, interference with the
independent formation of opinion by the Investigating Officer is not.

9
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently recognized this
distinction. In State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, (1980) 1 SCC 554, it
was held that the powers conferred under Section 36 CrPC are not
confined merely to administrative supervision. A superior police officer
possesses the same powers of investigation as the Officer-in-Charge of a
police station and may himself investigate or supervise the investigation
to ensure that the truth is discovered and justice is served. The object of
such further investigation is not to nullify the earlier investigation but to
supplement it by bringing all relevant facts before the Court. Similarly,
in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762, the Supreme Court
explained the distinction between a ‘fresh or de novo’ investigation,
which ordinarily requires judicial sanction, and further investigation,
which is a continuation of the earlier investigation for discovering the
truth. The Court emphasized that the police possess the inherent
authority to undertake further investigation before the report attains
finality, subject to the statutory safeguards contained in Section 173(8)
CrPC. The object of such further investigation is not to nullify the earlier
investigation but to supplement it by bringing all relevant facts before
the Court.
13. At the stage prior to the submission of the police report under
Section 173(2) CrPC/Section 193(3) BNSS, the investigation remains
under the ‘statutory and administrative supervision’ of the superior
police authorities. During this stage, a superior police officer is fully
empowered under Section 36 CrPC/Section 30 BNSS and relevant rules
to examine the case diary, scrutinize the investigation, withhold the
proposed police report, and direct the Investigating Officer to conduct
further investigation wherever the investigation is found to be
incomplete, defective, or lacking in material evidence. The object of
such supervision is to ensure that the investigation is complete, fair,
impartial, and based upon all relevant evidence before the police report
reaches the Magistrate.

10
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
14. The legal position changes once the police report has been submitted
before the Magistrate under Section 173(2) CrPC/Section 193(3) BNSS.
After submission of the police report, the superior police authority
cannot unilaterally recall, withdraw, or cancel the charge-sheet already
filed before the Court. At that stage, the investigation comes under the
supervision of the Court, and any further investigation can only be
undertaken in accordance with Section 173(8) CrPC/Section 193(9)
BNSS by submitting a supplementary police report before the
Magistrate. Thus, unlike the pre-submission stage, the superior police
authority cannot exercise administrative powers to undo a police report
that has already been filed before the Court. Any further investigation
must follow the statutory procedure and remain subject to judicial
supervision.
15. Thus, a clear distinction must be maintained between ‘supervisory
power’ and ‘investigative power’. A superior police officer is
empowered to supervise the investigation by inspecting the case diary,
pointing out defects, issuing lawful directions, and ensuring that the
investigation is conducted properly. For example, the superior officer
may direct the Investigating Officer to verify ‘an alibi’, collect CCTV
footage, examine additional witnesses, recover relevant documents, or
obtain scientific evidence, etc. However, the superior officer cannot
compel the Investigating Officer to sign or submit an opinion which the
Investigating Officer does not honestly hold. If the superior officer is of
the view that the investigation requires substantial alteration, he must
either exercise his own powers of investigation under Section 36
CrPC/Section 30 BNSS or entrust the investigation to another competent
Investigating Officer authorized to conduct the investigation and submit
the report. Thus, supervisory control ensures the legality and
completeness of the investigation, whereas the formation of the final
opinion under Section 173 CrPC/Section 193 BNSS must remain the
result of a lawful investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer.

11
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
16. In Bohatie Devi (Dead) through LRs v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
Others, (2023) 16 SCC 349, Hon’ble Supreme Court has explained the
limits of administrative interference after submission of the police
report. The Court held that the Secretary (Home) or any other executive
authority of the State Government cannot bypass the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure and direct a fresh investigation,
reinvestigation, or further investigation by another investigating agency
after a charge-sheet has already been submitted before the Magistrate
and cognizance has been taken. Once the matter enters the judicial
domain, executive authorities cannot interfere with the statutory
procedure prescribed under the Code.
17. The Supreme Court further observed that if an accused person is
aggrieved by the filing of a charge-sheet or supplementary charge-sheet,
the proper remedy is to invoke the jurisdiction of the competent Court by
filing proceedings such as a petition under Section 482 CrPC, a
discharge application, or any other remedy available under law. The
accused cannot seek administrative intervention from the Government or
executive authorities to nullify or circumvent the judicial process. The
Court also clarified that Section 173(3) CrPC, read with Section 158
CrPC, merely prescribes the channel through which the police report is
to be forwarded to the Magistrate through the superior police officer.
These provisions do not confer any independent authority upon the
Home Secretary or any executive officer to transfer the investigation to
another agency after the charge-sheet has been submitted or after the
Court has taken cognizance. In Paragraph 20 of the said judgment, the
Supreme Court specifically interpreted Sections 173(3) and 158 CrPC
and held that these provisions regulate only the manner in which the
police report is to be submitted before the Magistrate. The Court
observed that where a superior police officer has been appointed under
Section 158 CrPC, the police report shall be forwarded through such
superior officer, and pending the orders of the Magistrate, the superior
officer may direct the Officer-in-Charge of the police station to conduct

12
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
further investigation. Therefore, the statutory power to direct further
investigation before submission of the report remains with the superior
police officer under the scheme of the Code.
18. Under the statutory scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure and
the U.P. Police Regulations, the investigation of a criminal case remains
under the ‘general control and supervision’ of superior police officers
until the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC/Section 193(3) BNSS
is submitted before the Magistrate. The purpose of such supervision is to
ensure that the investigation is complete, fair, lawful, and based upon all
relevant evidence before the matter reaches the Court. In the ordinary
course, after completing the investigation, the Investigating Officer
prepares the case diary together with a draft final report or charge-sheet.
Before the report is forwarded to the Magistrate, it is examined through
the departmental hierarchy, such as the Station House Officer, Circle
Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Additional Superintendent of
Police or Superintendent of Police, as the case may be. These superior
officers exercise supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that the investigation
has been properly conducted and that the proposed police report is
legally sustainable. During such scrutiny, the superior police officer is
entitled to verify whether all material evidence has been collected,
whether the statements of witnesses have been properly recorded,
whether the relevant provisions of law have been correctly applied, and
whether any important witness, document or circumstance has been
overlooked.
19. If the investigation is found to be incomplete or defective, the
superior officer ‘may return’ the case diary and the draft police report to
the Investigating Officer with written directions requiring further
investigation. The purpose of directions is not to interfere with the
independence of the investigation but to remove deficiencies and ensure
that the final police report is based upon a complete and lawful
investigation. Once the Investigating Officer complies with those lawful

13
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
directions and completes the investigation, the police report under
Section 173(2) CrPC/Section 193(3) BNSS is submitted before the
Magistrate through the prescribed channel. At that stage, the statutory
obligation of the police to submit the report stands fulfilled. The internal
administrative supervision exercised by superior police officers remains
purely ‘departmental in nature’ and does not affect the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate after the report has been filed.
20. Thus, the statutory scheme strikes a balance between effective
departmental supervision and the independence of the investigating
process. While superior police officers are duty-bound to ensure that
investigations are thorough, impartial and legally sound before
submission of the police report, they cannot substitute the opinion of the
Investigating Officer or interfere with the ‘judicial process’ after the
police report has been submitted before the competent Court.
21. Thus, the legal position may, therefore, be summarised as follows:
(i) A superior police officer possesses the same statutory powers of
investigation as the Officer-in-Charge of a police station under Section
36 CrPC/Section 30 BNSS.
(ii) Before submission of the police report, the superior officer may
examine the case diary and return it to the Investigating Officer with
lawful directions for conducting further investigation to remove defects
or collect relevant additional evidence. Such supervisory powers are
recognized under the CrPC/BNSS as well as the U.P. Police Regulations.
(iii) A superior officer cannot compel submission of a charge-sheet
merely by substituting his own opinion unless he himself assumes the
investigation under Section 36 CrPC/Section 30 BNSS.
(iv) Once the police report has been submitted before the
Magistrate/Court, any further investigation can only be undertaken in
accordance with Section 173(8) CrPC/Section 193(9) BNSS by filing a
supplementary police report in the light of principle as laid down by
Apex Court as discussed herein above.

14
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
(v) The ‘Statutory Power’ to direct further investigation before
submission of police report to the Magistrate/Court, remains only with
‘Superior Police Officer’ under the scheme of CrPC/BNSS, not other
authority.
22. In the above-mentioned case, an objection has been raised by the
Supervising Officer/ Additional Superintendent of Police (Rural),
Jaunpur, in SCD lll ,stating that “the medical examination of the
complainant, Mr. Ram Pyare, and the injured person, Mr. Anuj Kumar
Singh, has been conducted. On the basis of the medical report, for the
legal disposal of the investigation of the said case, all original case
records along with Final Report No. 24/16 (dated 09.06.2016) have been
returned."admittedly, in this case, the final report had not been submitted
before the court or magistrate, therefore, no cognizance has been taken
up on the final report. The superior police officer/additional
superintendent of police has not passed an order under section 173(8)
CrPC, thus the argument of learn Counsel for the appellant that the
superior police Authority has passed an order under section 173(8)
CrPC, is not legally correct.
23. In the light of substratum of this case, the legal principals as
discussed here in above detail, I am of considered view that the superior
police officer in this case, has exercised ‘administrative power’
regarding return the case diary and final report draft to the investigating
officer to conduct the investigation properly and legally in the light of
instructions.
24. The Investigating Officer has adduced prima facie material
establishing sufficient grounds to proceed against the appellants. Having
carefully examined the record, the police report submitted under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C. and the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court,
this Court finds no legal infirmity, procedural irregularity, or
jurisdictional error in the order taking cognizance and summoning the

15
CRLA No. - 12592 of 2024
accused. Consequently, the present Criminal Appeal lacks merit and is
hereby dismissed.
25. The order dated 16.01.2019, passed by the learned Trial Court is
affirmed.
26. Before parting with the judgment, this Court records its
appreciation for the sincere assistance extended by Research Associates,
Mr. Shivansh Pandey and Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh, in researching the
legal issues involved and assisting in the preparation of this judgment.
Their efforts are gratefully acknowledged.
(Santosh Rai,J.)
July 14, 2026
Asha
Digitally signed by :-
ASHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad