The Single Bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC has observed that even the higher Court of the Country cannot issue a direction for reinvestigation of a case. In such circumstances, impugned FIR registered for reinvestigation cannot be sustained in law as such a course is neither provided nor permissible under the Code.
The trial court is not expected to merely act as post office and frame the charge just because challan for the commission of a particular offence has been filed against the accused. The trial court can sift the evidence brought on record by the prosecution so as to find out whether the un-rebutted evidence placed on record fulfils the ingredients of offence or not. If the ingredients of any offence are lacking, then the Court has no option but to discharge.
The Supreme Court while allowing the criminal appeal observed that the instant case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and therefore, the facts established by the prosecution do not rule out the existence of any other hypothesis. The facts established cannot be said to be consistent only with one hypotheses of the guilt of the appellant.
The Court observed that there is a contradiction in the order passed by the Court below. While on one hand, the learned Magistrate appears to be satisfied that cognizable offences seemed to have been committed on the basis of averments made in the complaint, on the other hand, the learned Magistrate has forwarded the complaint to be looked into by the Crime Branch with a further direction to register a case only if some cognizable offences are found to have been committed.