High Court

arising out of the Case Crime No. 586 of 2020, Under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 354(kha), 506, 395, 307 I.P.C. P.S. Manda, District Prayagraj, and further prayed may be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 1 for impartial further investigation of the above case in accordance with the law by concerned authority. And / or to pass such and further order while this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparably loss and injury."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is informant of the aforesaid case and she has lodged first information report against opposite party nos.2 to 9 for offences under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 354Kha, 506, 395, 307 IPC but after investigation, police have submitted charge-sheet only for offence under Sections 323, 506 IPC. The applicant has filed a protest application that matter be further investigated by some other agency. That application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.01.2025 by holding that application for further investigation can only be made by the Investigating Officer and none else. Learned counsel submitted that the said observation of learned Magistrate is against law and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and that a direction of further investigation can not be made at the instance of informant.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. It appears from record that the applicant has lodged First Information report against opposite party nos. 2 to 9 for offence under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 354kha, 506, 395, 307 IPC, alleging that on 22.11.2020 at about 12:00 noon the said opposite parties have trespassed into her house and assaulted her and opposite party no.2 molested her and she was made naked. It was also alleged that she was assaulted by all the said accused persons and her mangalsutra was also snatched and that she has sustained injuries. After investigation, the police have submitted final report concluding that involvement of named accused Balaram, Arjun Kumar Sonkar, Vivek Kumar Sonkar, Yashwant Kumar Sonkar & Virendra Kumar Sonkar was found false and thus they were exonerated. However, charge-sheet was filed against opposite party no.7 Manju Devi, opposite party no.8 Seema Devi and opposite party no.9 Asha Devi for offence under Sections 323, 506 IPC. The applicant has preferred the protest petition with prayer that a direction may be made for further investigation. That application was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 06.01.2025. It is well settled that power to order further investigation is a significant power and it has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends of justice. In this connection, a reference may be made to the case of Devendra Nath Singh versus State of Bihar and Others (2023) 1 SCC 48. Whether further investigation must be directed or not, the same is within the discretion of the Magistrate and said discretion has to be exercised on the basis of facts of each case in accordance with law. A prior concern and endeavor of the court should be to secure justice on the basis of true facts, which ought to be unearthed through a committed and competent investigating agency. A direction for further investigation can not be made in a routine manner without examining the facts and circumstances of the case, when the investigation has already been conducted. Recently, in case of K. Vadivel versus K. Shanthi and others (SLP No.4360 of 2022), decided on 30.09.2024, the Apex Court held that further investigation can not be permitted to do a fishing and roving inquiry, when police had already filed a charge-sheet and in an application for further investigation, the respondent has not whispered about anything new in the application. It was observed that there must be some reasonable basis, which should trigger the application for further investigation so that the court is able to arrive at a satisfaction that ends of justice require ordering / permitting further investigation.

7. In the instant matter, merely general and vague allegations were levelled against eight persons named in the First Information Report. The injury report of the injured has not been brought on record. It appears that all the private opposite parties / accused are members of one and same family. It cannot be believed that opposite party no.2 Balaram, along with his brother, son, wife and other family members would indulge in molestation of informant / applicant. It appears that after investigation, police have found that only a case against opposite party nos. 7, 8 & 9, namely, Manju Devi, Seema Devi & Asha Devi for offence under Sections 323, 506 IPC was made out and charge-sheet was submitted accordingly and rest of the named persons were exonerated. In the protest petition, the applicant has mainly alleged that the investigation has not been conducted properly and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted in connivance with accused persons. No such facts were alleged regarding which further investigation may be expedient. Learned Magistrate has considered entire facts and position of law and the application of applicant for further investigation, was rejected by a reasoned order. No material illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice so as to require any interference by invoking extraordinary powers envisaged under Section 528 BNSS. This application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 'SP'/-

arising out of the Case Crime No. 586 of 2020, Under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 354(kha), 506, 395, 307 I.P.C. P.S. Manda, District Prayagraj, and further prayed may be pleased to direct the opposite party no. 1 for impartial further investigation of the above case in accordance with the law by concerned authority. And / or to pass such and further order while this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparably loss and injury."

3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is informant of the aforesaid case and she has lodged first information report against opposite party nos.2 to 9 for offences under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 354Kha, 506, 395, 307 IPC but after investigation, police have submitted charge-sheet only for offence under Sections 323, 506 IPC. The applicant has filed a protest application that matter be further investigated by some other agency. That application has been rejected by the learned Magistrate vide order dated 06.01.2025 by holding that application for further investigation can only be made by the Investigating Officer and none else. Learned counsel submitted that the said observation of learned Magistrate is against law and thus the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order and that a direction of further investigation can not be made at the instance of informant.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

6. It appears from record that the applicant has lodged First Information report against opposite party nos. 2 to 9 for offence under Sections 147, 149, 452, 323, 354kha, 506, 395, 307 IPC, alleging that on 22.11.2020 at about 12:00 noon the said opposite parties have trespassed into her house and assaulted her and opposite party no.2 molested her and she was made naked. It was also alleged that she was assaulted by all the said accused persons and her mangalsutra was also snatched and that she has sustained injuries. After investigation, the police have submitted final report concluding that involvement of named accused Balaram, Arjun Kumar Sonkar, Vivek Kumar Sonkar, Yashwant Kumar Sonkar & Virendra Kumar Sonkar was found false and thus they were exonerated. However, charge-sheet was filed against opposite party no.7 Manju Devi, opposite party no.8 Seema Devi and opposite party no.9 Asha Devi for offence under Sections 323, 506 IPC. The applicant has preferred the protest petition with prayer that a direction may be made for further investigation. That application was rejected by the learned Magistrate vide impugned order dated 06.01.2025. It is well settled that power to order further investigation is a significant power and it has to be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases and to achieve the ends of justice. In this connection, a reference may be made to the case of Devendra Nath Singh versus State of Bihar and Others (2023) 1 SCC 48. Whether further investigation must be directed or not, the same is within the discretion of the Magistrate and said discretion has to be exercised on the basis of facts of each case in accordance with law. A prior concern and endeavor of the court should be to secure justice on the basis of true facts, which ought to be unearthed through a committed and competent investigating agency. A direction for further investigation can not be made in a routine manner without examining the facts and circumstances of the case, when the investigation has already been conducted. Recently, in case of K. Vadivel versus K. Shanthi and others (SLP No.4360 of 2022), decided on 30.09.2024, the Apex Court held that further investigation can not be permitted to do a fishing and roving inquiry, when police had already filed a charge-sheet and in an application for further investigation, the respondent has not whispered about anything new in the application. It was observed that there must be some reasonable basis, which should trigger the application for further investigation so that the court is able to arrive at a satisfaction that ends of justice require ordering / permitting further investigation.

7. In the instant matter, merely general and vague allegations were levelled against eight persons named in the First Information Report. The injury report of the injured has not been brought on record. It appears that all the private opposite parties / accused are members of one and same family. It cannot be believed that opposite party no.2 Balaram, along with his brother, son, wife and other family members would indulge in molestation of informant / applicant. It appears that after investigation, police have found that only a case against opposite party nos. 7, 8 & 9, namely, Manju Devi, Seema Devi & Asha Devi for offence under Sections 323, 506 IPC was made out and charge-sheet was submitted accordingly and rest of the named persons were exonerated. In the protest petition, the applicant has mainly alleged that the investigation has not been conducted properly and the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted in connivance with accused persons. No such facts were alleged regarding which further investigation may be expedient. Learned Magistrate has considered entire facts and position of law and the application of applicant for further investigation, was rejected by a reasoned order. No material illegality or perversity could be pointed out in the impugned order. There is nothing to show that there has been any abuse of the process of court or miscarriage of justice so as to require any interference by invoking extraordinary powers envisaged under Section 528 BNSS. This application under Section 528 BNSS lacks merit and thus liable to be dismissed.

8. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. Order Date :- 16.7.2025 'SP'/-