The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No. 2558 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973) Laxmipriya Pradhan ……. Petitioner State of Orissa & others -Versus- ……. Opposite Parties For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Samal, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. S.J. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Date of Hearing: 13.02.2025 Date of Judgment: 04.03.2025 S.S. Mishra, J. The present petition is preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Kamakhyanagar, in G.R. Case No. 326/2017, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioner seeking for a direction to police for further investigation. Page 1 of 12 2. The petitioner, who is the informant in the case, contends that the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer (IO) was incomplete and improper, leading to a miscarriage of justice. It is urged that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the material irregularities in the investigation and has erroneously declined to order further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 3. The marriage between the petitioner and accused Trilochan Pradhan was solemnized on 08.02.2017 at village Bangura, District Dhenkanal. Alleging cruelty, harassment, and demands
Legal Reasoning
for dowry by the accused persons, the petitioner lodged an FIR on 18.10.2017 at Kamakshyanagar Police Station, leading to the registration of Kamakshyanagar P.S. Case No. 209/2017 under Sections 498-A, 341, 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The FIR named nine accused persons, including the husband, mother-in-law of the petitioner and her neighbors as well. 4. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet on 30.04.2018, implicating only Trilochan Pradhan (husband) and Malati Pradhan (mother-in- Page 2 of 12 law), while exonerating the remaining accused persons for want of any material evidence against them. On 11.05.2018, the learned SDJM, Kamakhyanagar, took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused persons to face trial. The petitioner moved an application seeking reinvestigation of the case vis-à-vis the accused persons those who have been dropped by the investigating officer. The trial Court while dealing with the said application vide its order dated 20.01.2021, observed as under: through “A petition is filed under the signature of one Laxmipriya Pradhan describing herself as the informant of the case. In the petition, it is prayed to pass an order for reinvestigation of the case. Such a prayer is not made by the learned APP. prosecution Investigation is already over the charge sheet has already been submitted. Now the evidence of the witnesses is being taken up. So, at this stage, petition on behalf a private party to direct further investigation of this case cannot be entertained. Hence, the petition stands rejected. Put up on 29.01.2021 for hearing.” the 5. Dissatisfied with the incomplete and inadequate investigation, the petitioner moved an application before the learned Magistrate, seeking reinvestigation of the case. However, by order dated 20.01.2021, the learned Magistrate rejected the application primarily on the following grounds: Page 3 of 12 (i) The prayer for reinvestigation was not made by the prosecution through the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP); (ii) The investigation had already been concluded, and the charge sheet had been submitted; (iii) The trial was already in progress, and evidence of witnesses was being recorded; (iv) There was substantial delay in filing the application seeking reinvestigation; and (v) The application was filed by the informant, who is a private party, and therefore had no locus standi to seek reinvestigation. 6. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached this
Decision
Court by filing CRLMC No. 1073/2021, which was disposed of on 21.02.2024. This Court observed that the learned Trial Court does have the power to direct reinvestigation or further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., irrespective of whether such an application is filed by the prosecution or the informant. It was further held that the informant has the locus Page 4 of 12 standi to seek further investigation, and accordingly, the learned Magistrate was directed to reconsider the application and pass a speaking order. The observation made by this Court in its order dtd. 21.02.2024 is relevant to be reproduced herein under: 8. This Court on a careful analysis of the impugned rejection order under Annexure-6 dated 20.01.2021 observes that the learned trial Court has been swayed away by the fact that the application has been made by the informant and not by the APP representing the prosecution. This Court at this juncture however observes that the power to direct for reinvestigation lies with the discretion of the Court conducting the trial irrespective of the fact as to who has filed such an application. the informant is competent to bring such an is application. Moreover, competent to bring such application. Other than that no reason has been assigned in the impugned order. informant the S.D.J.M.,Kamakhyanagar 9. In such view of the matter, the impugned rejection order is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded to the to learned reconsider the application of the Petitioner- informant, Prosecution as well as the accused and thereafter pass a speaking order. It is further directed that the learned trial court shall do well to dispose of the application in Annexure-5 by passing a speaking order within six weeks from the date of passing such order. 7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the learned Magistrate Page 5 of 12 reconsidered the matter, but again rejected the prayer for further investigation vide impugned order dated 11.03.2024, leading to the present petition. The impugned order reads as under: though “On perusal of the contention of the petition filed on behalf of the prosecutrix, it is found that prayer has been made for direction to re- investigate the case as because the I.O during course of his investigation willfully excluded the name of persons namely Gyani Samal, Rama Samal, Ahalya Pradhan, Keshab Chandra Bag, Sabita Pradhan, Gobinda Kissan and Purna Chandra Kissan from the charge sheet the FIR has been registered in their names. But in the instant case, as the cognizance has already been taken earlier, at this stage if further re- investigation will be directed that shall amount to review of its own order which is passed by this Court on dtd. 11.05.2018 but the criminal Court (Judicial magistrate) has no power/jurisdiction to review its own order. In this regard, it is also held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramakanta Singh Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2023). In view of the above discussion and finding of the Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to direct the I.O for re-investigation of this case. Accordingly, the petition on dtd. 05.03.2024 filed on behalf of the prosecution stands rejected being devoid of merit.” The trial Court has again rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. The said order is not in consonance with the direction made by the coordinate bench of Page 6 of 12 this Court by the order dated 21.02.2024. Hence, technically speaking the impugned order being not in consonance with the direction of this Court should have been set aside. However, regard being had to the fact that this is the second round of litigation and the litigation is prolonging for no reason, this Court feels it appropriate to delve into the issue on merits and decide the case as to whether further investigation is indeed warranted in the facts of this case. 8. Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer was manifestly defective, incomplete, and failed to incorporate material aspects of the case. It is contended that serious allegations of attempt to murder and use of weapons (gun, knife, LPG cylinder) were omitted from the charge sheet, despite these being categorically mentioned in the FIR. 9. It is further argued that the Odia translation of the FIR misrepresented the actual allegations, leading to an incorrect framing of charges. Moreover, the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not reflect the essential facts of the incident, demonstrating a lack of diligence on the part Page 7 of 12 of the Investigating Officer in elucidating the truth. 10. The petitioner further contended that the learned Magistrate has failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., despite there being palpable lapses in the investigation. It is argued that the power to direct further investigation is an inherent power of the Magistrate, and in the present case, the failure to exercise such power has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. 11. Per contra, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State submits that the investigation was conducted fairly and in accordance with law, and there was sufficient material before the Investigating Officer to proceed with the case. It is further contended that the trial is already at an advanced stage, and ordering further investigation at this juncture would only cause unnecessary delay. 12. It is also submitted that the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are consistent, and there is no suppression of material facts by the Investigating Officer. It is further argued that the decision of the Investigating Officer in excluding certain accused persons from the charge sheet was based on the available evidence, and therefore, no interference is Page 8 of 12 warranted by this Court in the present proceeding. 13. The power of a Magistrate to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is well recognized. However, this power must be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course. The purpose of further investigation is to ensure a fair trial by addressing material omissions or lapses in the initial investigation. 14. However, once a charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, the threshold for allowing further investigation is higher. Such an order should be passed only when the deficiencies in the investigation are so fundamental that they affect the fairness of the trial itself. The learned Magistrate, in the present case, has examined the record and found no such compelling reason to interfere with the investigation. 15. While an informant has the right to seek further investigation, such a request cannot be entertained solely on the ground of dissatisfaction with the charge sheet. The criminal justice system does not provide for multiple rounds of investigation merely because the informant believes that certain aspects were not properly addressed. It is also pertinent to note Page 9 of 12 that the informant is not without remedy. If the petitioner believes that material facts have been ignored, she may file a protest petition before the Magistrate, urging the court to consider additional evidence or summon certain witnesses. During the course of the trial, if any evidence comes on record against the accused who were previously excluded in the investigation, the trial Court under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code can even summon those accused. The case of Deokinandan and Ors. vs State of U.P. And Ors., 1996CRILJ61 has accurately dealt with such issue and has held thus: “Therefore, the correct legal position, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is that on a consideration of the police report under Section 173(2), a Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code, though it is also open for him to proceed under Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. also. The observation that has been relied upon by the learned single Judge in Ahibaran Singh's case would thus only mean that it is open to the Magistrate to proceed in such a case by treating the protest petition to be complaint but it is not mandatory for him to do so. He can accept the protest petition and take cognizance on the basis of the police report also. Accordingly, Ahibaran Singh's case cannot be held to be a good law in view of the observation and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. India Carat Pvt. Limited's case.” 16. A balance must be maintained between ensuring a fair trial Page 10 of 12 and protecting the right of the accused to a speedy trial, which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed in the year 2018, and the trial has been ongoing since then, further investigation at this stage would result in unwarranted delay, affecting the accused's right to a fair and timely trial. Thus, permitting further investigation would reopen the matter at a stage where witnesses have already been examined, leading to procedural complications. Even on merit, except bold and general allegation against the petitioner, some of whom are neighbors of the complainant, there is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioner. General tendency to roping in multiple family members in the matrimonial disputes has been emphatically condemned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2756 and K. Subba Rao vs State of Telangana, reported in AIR 2018 SC 4009. Therefore, general allegations without substantive evidence and on the exaggerated accusations in the FIR are only aimed at harassing the family members of the husband in the matrimonial case. This case apparently is of no exception. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the complainant for Page 11 of 12 reinvestigation/further investigation. 17. Accordingly, this Court declines to give indulgence to the petitioner. Hence the CRLMC is dismissed. Judge (S.S. Mishra) The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 4th of March, 2025/ Ashok Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 12-Mar-2025 19:06:42 Page 12 of 12