Mrs. Dr. G. Sai Snigdha Bashitha v. consequently direct the

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to direct Respondent No.2 herein to conduct an effective and expedite investigation and fire a charge sheet Under 173 0f cRpc in crime No. 259 0t 2024 0f ps Hanamkonda, warangar District, pending disposar of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.RAGHUNATH, Sr. COUNSEL, REp. FOR Ms. VEROSE SANJANA Counsel for the Respondents: Gp FOR HOME' The Court made the following: ORDER l THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITIoN No. 2a2a2 of 2o24 ORDER; This Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: ". . .to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Wft of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent No.3 herein in not conducting an effectiue and expedite inuestigation into the Crime No.259 of 2024 of PS Hanmakonda, Warangal Distict, for'the offences U/ Sec.49B-A, 496, 327, 307, 5O6 R/u 34 IPC and 3 & 4 of DP Act, as being itlegal, arbitrary ond uiolatiue of Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentlg direct the respondent No.2 herein to conduct the inuestigation and fiIe the Charge Sheet in Cime No.259 of 2O24 and pass such other order..."

2. Heard Sri V.Raghunath, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. V.Sanjana, learned counsel for the petitioner, Iearned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, and perused the record.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that based on the complaint made by the petitioner, dt.26.O5.2024, though the 3.d respondent-authority l-rad 2 1 reglstered a case uide Crirne No.259 12024, the said authority is not expediting/conducting the effective investigation into the aforesaid crime, resulting in the accused committing criminal acts against the petitioner, with sore intention to coerce the petitioner to withdraw the complaint lodged against the accused in the aforesaid crime, which action of the respondents_ auflrorities it is contended as highly illega-l, arbitrar5i.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that she got married to accused No. 1 in the aforesaid crime on 02.09.2023 as per Hindu Customs and Rituals; that at the time of marriage, the petitioners' pa_rents have paid dowry of a sum of Rs.1.5 Crores and other amounts towards other customary rituals apart from a Car worth Rs.93 lakhs, lar-rd to an extent of Acres 4.3 guntas arld also provided a residential flat to accused No. 1. 5' Petitioner further contends that she is not only the victim of dowry harassment but was also victim of fraudulent marriage performed with accused No.l, as after the marriage it was disclosed that accused No.1 is a gay and is into immoral and unhealthy practices. i ::3::

6. Petitioner further contends that based on her complaint, the respondents-authorities having registered the aforesaid case, have issued notice under Section 4lA of Cr.p.C. on 11.06.2024 to accused No.1 and notice dt.22.O6.2O24 to accused Nos.2 to 7 therein. 7 . It is the further contention of the petitioner that accused No.1 in the aforesaid crime taking advantage of the notice being issued under Section 41A of Cr.p.C., once-again hatched a conspiracy against the petitioner to defame her and resorted to character assassination by committing second crime by morphing the petitioner's normal photo with unseen photos and shared/circulated them with accused No.4 in the aforesaid crime resulting in the petitioner approaching the respondents_ authorities and lodging another complaint, based on which the authorities have registered a case uid.e Crjme No.3l4 / 2024 dt.O8.O7.2024 under Section 6ZA of Information Technologr Act, 2000. 8 Petitioner contends that despite two crimes are registered against the accused therein, the said accused are not only continuing to persist with their criminal acts but are also I r---. 4 poslng serious threat to the petitioner,s life and liberty, and thus, sought for a direction to the 2.a respondent to conduct investigation arrd file charge sheet in Crime No.259 of 2024.

9. Per contra, learned Government pleader for Home appearing on behalf of officiai respondents while denying the writ averments would submit that the respondents-authorities on registering the aforesaid crime have conducted investigation thereinto; that pending investigation, as the proceedings against accused Nos.i to T have been quashed by the Hon,ble High Court uide Crl.petition No.6456 of 2024, they have closed the aforesaid complaint against accused Nos. 2 to 7; that as the evidence collected in the course of investigation clearly established accused No.1 being liable to be punished under Section 498A,294(b), 42O,323, 496, 322,3O7,506 r/w 34 IpC and Section 3 & 4 of Dp Act, 196 1, the respondents have filed charge sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate agajnst accused No.l on 2O.O8.2O24, which was returned by the concerned Magistrate with certain objections to be complied.

10. Learned Government pleader further submits that the respondents-authoritie s thereafter complying with / a/ I 5 objections have resubmitted the charge sheet on 12.12.2024 uide PRC. SR .No. 10 17 / 2025. 1 1. Learned Government Pleader submits that thus, the claim of the petitioner of the 3.d respondent not concluding the investigation expeditiously and elfectively is thus not correct.

72. On the above submissions being made, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would however, contend that a perusal of the charge sheet as filed by the respondents claiming to have conducted investigation would show that the

3.d respondent had filed the aforesaid charge sheet based on the confessional statement made by accused No.1 therein and that he did not collect any additional evidence.

13. On behalf of the petitioner it is further contended that since, the entire charge sheet laid by the 3'd respondent is based on the confessional statement made by accused No.1, the evidentiar5r value of such a statement made by accused No.1 is forgone conclusion, which will only result in the accused No.1 getting acquitted. 6

14. On behalf of the petitioner it is further contended that the petitioner being a victim I defacfo-complainant apprehends that the 3.d respondent had not conducted effective and fair investigation at the time of filing charge sheet and had relied soiely on the statement made in the remand report, which would only help accused No.1 to get acquittal, and thus, the action of the 3.a respondent in filing a charge sheet based on the confessional statement of accused No.1 cannot be said as having conducted investigation in a proper manner by collecting evidence against accused for the offences with which he is charged, thereby resulting in vioiation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

15. On the aforesaid submission being made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, this Court had specif,rcally queried the learned Senior Counsel as to 'Whether a uictim/ defacto-complainant can approach the jurtsdictional Magistrate and seek for further inuestigation not being satisfied with the inuestigation conducted/ charge sheet filed', to which the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the fetitioner had emphatically answered that the 1 victim/ defacto-complainant does not have aly remedy to ventilate her grievance with regard to the respondents- authorities not having conducted investigation in a proper m'anner by collecting evidence, and as such, she is left with no remedy other than to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as non-conducting of effective and fair investigation results in violation of Articles 14 & 2l of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court in Zahira Habibutta H Sheikh and Anr us State Of Guiarat And Otsl also known as Best Bakery Case. In support of the above contention reliance is placed on the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Chinnathambi u. The Statez.

16. On the a-foresaid submission being made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents submits 'that the Petitioner can invoke/avail the remedy provided under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. ' (2004) 4 scc 158 z MANU1INlo747lzo77 8

17. Learned Government Pleadcr would submit that the remedy available under the said provision can be invoked in four instances, namelg - i/ in the form of a protest petition r.r,hen the complaint is closed; lji Magistrate being vested with the power to suo rnotu order further investigation at the time taking cognizance; ili/ Magistrate being vested wittr the power to call for further investigation in the course of trial; ar-rd iu) the respondents-authorities,-themselves undertaking further investigation with the permission of the Court

18. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the petitioner if not satisfied with the investigation undertaken by the respondents-authorities, can approach the concerned Magistrate and seek for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., ard the said position of lar.r, is settled by catena of decisions of the Apex Court.

19. Thus, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that there is no remedy available to the petitioner to seek further investigation is not correc! and the concerned Magistrate is fully empou,ered 9 under section 173(8) of cr.P.c., to order further investigation even on an application made by the defacto complainant'

20. I have taken note of the respective submissions made' 2l.ThoughbythepresentwritPetitionthemainreliefsought forbythepetitioneristodirectthe2"arespondenttoconduct investigation and file charge sheet in Crime No'259 12024' since, a charge sheet is already filed before the jurisdictional Magistratpor T2.L2.2o24,thegrievanceofthepetitionerinthe present Writ Petition stalds redressed'

22. However, taking note of the contention that the charge sheet filed by the 3.d respondent before the jurisdictional Magistrate 1S solely based on the confessional statement of accused No.1, this Court had perused the contents of the charge sheet filed.

23. A perusal of the charge sheet filed along with the list of documents in Crime No.259 /2024 would show that the LW9 / Investigating Officer i.e-, 3'd respondent-authority having examined LWs.l to 6 in connection with the aforesaid crime and recorded their statements under Section 161 of Cr'P'C' In :: l0: : addition, the 3.a respondent a_lso collecte d. the tuhatsapp chats of the accused No. 1,s sister, in addition to the medical certificates i. relation to treatment obtained by the petitioner as well as the treatment provided to accused No. 1 in relation to his mental condition, and photographs captured by accused No. I on his ipod, in all totaling to 54 pages.

24. Though the petitioner had claimed of the 3.d respondent having filed a charge sheet based on the confessional statement given by accusecl No.1 and the same would fail when subjected to scrutiny to prove the guilt of accused No.1, it is to be noted that in a writ Petition rrled under Articre 226 of the constitution of India, no direction can be given to conduct investigation in a particular manner.

25. Further. it is to be noted that Section 173 of Cr.p.C., deals with report of Police Officer on completion of investigation and sub-Section (8) thereof dea-ls with the power to conduct further investigation even after a report under sub_Section (2) of Section I73 of Cr.p.C., hab been forwarded to the Magistrate concerned. ::ll::

26. Though on behalf of the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of Madras High Court in Chinnolthormbi's case (supra), it is contended that the said pbwer can be exercised by the Magistrate only on request made by the investigating agency or suo motu, ar,d not at the instance of anyone and that the power to gralt permission for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr'P'C', can be exercised by the Magistrate before accepting the negative police report' thereby acting on the Protest Petition filed by the victirnl defacfo.complainant, that the Madras High Court while holdingasaboverelieduponthedecisionoftheApexCourtin Amnfibhai Shambhubhai Patel us Sumanbhai Kantibhai patel & Ors.s, the said decision was overruled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malauiga a' The State of Guiarat+. 27 . Further, the it is to be noted that the Apex Court in Zunaid a. State of U.P.s had held as under: 'lzorz; + stc'+zz o lzors; tz scc r ' lzoz:; r+ scc szo iilz:l " 1 1 . It may be noted that even in a case where the hnal report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the olfence on a complair-rt or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even aftel the acceptance of the hnal report. As held by this Court in Gopal Vijag Vernta Vs. Bhuneshuar Prasad Sinha and Other*, as foilowed tn B. Chandrika Vs. So,nthosh and AnotherT, a Magistrate is not debarred from taking cognizance of a complaint merely on . the ground that earlier he had declined to take cognizance of the police report. No doubt a 2 (19821 3 SCC 510 3 (2014) 13 SCC 699 Magistrate while exercising his judicial discretion has to apply his mind to the contents of the Protest Petition or the complaint as the case may be."

28. The Apex Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malauiga's case (supra) dealt with the scope of further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., and held that the power of the Magistrate is not circumscribed by the report filed by the police/investigating agency and the Magistrate has power to order further investigation. u (1982) 3 scC 510 = 1983 scc (cri) 110 ' lzor+; r: scc 699 = (201a) s scc (cri)800 a ::13::

29. Further, the Apex Court in the case of State through CBI u. Hemendra Red.dgs referring to its earlier decision in the case of Srr Bhaguan Samardha Sreepada V'Venkata Vishutandadha Maharai Vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & ors.ghadapprovedtheobservationsmadebytheHighCourtin its order dt. 11.09.2014, and held as under: "6. Although sub section (8) of Section 173 of Cr'P C does not, in specific terms, mention about the powers of the court to order further investigation, the power of the pollce to conduct further investigation envisaged therein can be triggered into motion at the instance of the court' Therefore, acceptance of final report by Magistrate does not debar him from taking cognizance of the offence if no further investigation fresh materials come to light ln such a situation, the power of the court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) of Cr'P C to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made."

30. In the light of the law as enunciated by the Apex Court' the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner being victirr.l defacto-complainant does not have any remedy being aggrieved by the manner of investigation by the 3'a respondent I zoz3 'g 1999(5) scc 740 *-- iil4ti into Crime No.2S9 I 2024 and can seek redressal of her grievance only by filing the present Writ petition, as noted hereinabove, cannot be accepted as the petitioner ought to have avaiied the remedy provided under Section 173(g) of Cr.p.C., by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate by pointing out the defects/ deficiencies in the investigation conducted by the 3.a respondent, rvhich may resuit in the accused getting acquittal in the aforesaid crime, for the Magistrate to take note of the same and if satisfied can order further investigation.

31. However, as it is not shown to this Court of the petitioner having availed the said remedy provided under Section 173(g) of Cr.P.C., and taking note of the fact that the respondents had hled the charge sheet against accused No. 1 before the jurisdictional Court during the pendency of the present Writ Petition, this court is of the view that the petitioner is to be granted with an opportunity to submit her protest by submitting information/documents available with her for the Magistrate to consider the same a''d take further decision, as to whether on the basis of the aforesaid information/documents, further investigation is to be ordered or not. / / '//' ::15::

32. Thus, the petitioner is granted four (04) weeks time from thedateofreceiptofacopyofthisordertoapproachthe jurisdictional Magistrate, before whom the respondents- authorities have filed charge sheet in Crime No'259 12024 against accused No'7, uide PRC'SR'No' lOlT 12025' Subject to the above observations and directions' the Writ JJ. Petition is disposed of' No order as to costs'

34.Consequently,miscellaleouspetitions,ifany,pending shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/- SI SRINIVASA REDDY TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home' Secretariat' Hyderaba d, State of Telangana.

2. fhe Commissioner of Police, Warangal' 3. The Station House Officer, Hanmakonda PS' Warangal District' 4. One CC to Ms. VEROSE SANJANA' Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD CoPies a. BS GJ HIGH COURT DATED:28l0tt2O2S ORDER WP.No.282B2 of 2024 .} $lJ [, 2['6 C)x t' OrSPAT * l+J ,r,: o() b* DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS