Further Investigation Can't Be Carried Out Without Trial Court's Permission U/s. 193(9) BNSS After Final Report Is Filed: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that no further investigation can be carried out without the permission of the trial court when a report under Section 193(3) of the BNSS has already been filed.
The Court referred to Section 193 (9) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and clarified that further investigation during the trial can be conducted with the permission of the Court trying the case and the same must be completed within a period of ninety days which may be extended with the permission of the Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga observed, “Before parting, I may also hasten to add here that, in any case, where a report under section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has already been filed against the prime accused, no further investigation can be carried out without the permission of the learned trial court, in view of Section 193(9) of BNSS. For ready reference, the relevant part of the Section 193 of the BNSS.”
Senior Advocate V.R. Bajwa appeared for the petitioner, while AAG Deepak Choudhary represented the respondents.
The Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR registered against him under Sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 65 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act).
In an earlier order of the Court, it was stated that four charge sheets were already filed after the completion of the investigation. The order noted that none of the charge sheets attributed any role to the petitioner and neither was he named anywhere so as to array him as an accused. The Court asked whether the prosecution intended to file any supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioner.
In the present hearing, the prosecution submitted that after the investigation, no offence was found to have been committed by the petitioner. Further, it was submitted that no supplementary charge-sheet was proposed to be filed against the petitioner, as the allegations made against him were found to be completely unsubstantiated.
The High Court noted, “On perusal of the aforesaid report, I am inclined to agree with the statement of the learned Additional Advocate General, as no culpability of commission of any offence is attributable to the petitioner.”
Therefore, the Bench stated that since the petitioner was not an accused, “his prayer seeking quashing of the FIR qua him does not really survive any adjudication.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the petition.
Cause Title: Gajendra Singh Shekhawat v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:39977)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate V.R. Bajwa; Advocates Aditya Vikram Singh, Ajit Sharma and Yuvraj Singh
Respondents: AAG Deepak Choudhary; PP Sonu Manawat and Vikram Singh Rajpurohit; ASGI R.D. Rastogi; Advocate B.P. Bohra
