JUDGMENT Mrinal Kanti Sinha, J. 1. THIS revisional application has been directed against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat on 4.4.2009 in G.R. case No. 160/2009, whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned rejected the petition of the defacto-complainant, the present petitioner, praying for necessary order after setting aside the impugned order. 2. IT is the case of the petitioner as defacto-complainant of the said G.R. Case No. 160/2009 arising out of Balurghat police station case No. 72 dated 27.02.2009 that she was married with the opposite party No.2 on 13.05.2007 according to Hindu Rites and Customs and at the time of her marriage her brothers gave cash, gold ornaments and various other items to the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, who are teacher and retired headmaster respectively. While the petitioner was living in her matrimonial home after marriage, then the opposite party No.2 used to assault her physically and tortured her mentally to which the opposite party No.3 did not protest. Due to the said assault and torture the petitioner became unconscious on 23.02.2009 at about 9.30 P.M. and thereafter she admitted herself into the hospital while her stridhan articles were retained at her matrimonial home. She lodged a complaint at Balurghat Police Station. In pursuance of a First Information Report of the petitioner investigation was made by police authorities, but in the course of investigation police authorities did not take any step for recovery of stridhan articles of the petitioner and the police authorities did not examine various vital witnesses including Doctor, who examined the petitioner, nor cited them as witness, and did not take any step for seizure of medical documents like admission slip, discharge slip, injury report etc. relating to treatment of the petitioner from Balurghat Hospital where the petitioner remained admitted. After completion of a mala fide and misconceived investigation the Investigating Officer of the Balurghat Police Station submitted a report in final form vide Charge sheet No. 65 dated 13.03.2009 under Section 498A/34 only of Indian Penal Code against the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. The Investigating Officer of Balurghat Police Station did not inform the petitioner about the result of that investigation. 2 and 3. The Investigating Officer of Balurghat Police Station did not inform the petitioner about the result of that investigation. As no proper investigation has been conducted by the police authorities the petitioner filed an application in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat on 25.03.2009 praying for reinvestigation into the matter, but that petition was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur, Balurghat on 04.04.2009 after hearing the parties. Hence this revisional application. The opposite party No.1 State of West Bengal is contesting the case through learned P.P. Though initially Mr. P. S. Bose, learned Advocate appeared for opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 vide order serial No.282 dated 17.06.2009, yet subsequently none appeared to contest this case on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. 3. THE point to be considered in this matter is whether the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was legal correct, proper and justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the said petition of the petitioner for reinvestigation. 4. MR. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate in the said case is arbitrary and illegal causing grave prejudice and injustice to the petitioner, and the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer of Dakshin Dinajpur into the said case of the petitioner was perfunctory, erroneous with a lackadaisical attitude. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the case hurriedly within about 15/16 days without seizure of medical papers and examination of vital witnesses, and recovery of stridhan articles of the petitioner, and so such order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is required to be set aside and further investigation is to be directed for arriving at the truth, and Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. provides for such further investigation into the matter. In support of his submission learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions reported in 2004 C.Cr.LR. (SC) 865 and 2008(1) E.Cr.N.(Cal.) page 852, (2005)2 C.Cr.LR. (Cal) 295. Sk. In support of his submission learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions reported in 2004 C.Cr.LR. (SC) 865 and 2008(1) E.Cr.N.(Cal.) page 852, (2005)2 C.Cr.LR. (Cal) 295. Sk. Kasem Ali Ahmed, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 State, has contended that charge-sheet has been submitted in the said case by the Investigating Officer concerned in a hasty manner within 14/15 days, and no reason has been assigned by the Investigating Officer as to why the medical papers in connection with the treatment of the petitioner were not seized and vital witnesses were not examined and stridhan articles of the petitioner were not recovered. There was no direction upon the Investigating Officer by any superior Police Officer for submitting Charge-sheet in such a hasty manner, and the defacto-complainant was not asked by the Investigating Officer concerned about her medical papers and truth has not been unveiled thereby and for revelation of truth the matter requires further investigation and even after filing charge-sheet such further investigation may be ordered treating naraji petition as second complaint. 5. IT appears that while rejecting the petitioner's petition dated 25.03.2009 for reinvestigation into her case the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur, has observed by her order dated 04.04.2009 passed in G.R. case No. 160/2009 that :- "..... IT is a case u/S 498A I.P.C. where the general allegation is of torture ------ bodily and mentally. Both the accused are on bail and charge-sheet has already been submitted. Case is ready for supply of copy. At this stage defacto-complainant appeared and started saying that investigation is defective. Charge has not been framed. During trial defacto-complainant would get definite chance to produce her treatment papers, admission slip, discharge slip etc. so that stage has not gone from her hand. Now regarding citing of witnesses in charge-sheet I would like to mention that independent witnesses are required who has knowledge about the incident and it is immaterial that whether they are supporting of any particular 'side' or not. so that stage has not gone from her hand. Now regarding citing of witnesses in charge-sheet I would like to mention that independent witnesses are required who has knowledge about the incident and it is immaterial that whether they are supporting of any particular 'side' or not. If this court finds during trial that any material witness has been left out whose evidence would have the potential to bring the 'truth' before the Court and whose name has not been included in the charge-sheet, this Court is having every right being armed with the sanction u/S 311 Cr.P.C. to bring that particular witness before it as 'Court witness' and would scrutiny the evidentiary value of his/her evidence in accordance with law. IT cannot run with any defacto-complainant just to prove one sided story. Every case has two sides, two plights, two stories and Court cannot sit on the right of one side to the detriment of other side. So, in my considered opinion defacto-complaint would get opportunity during trial to inform the Court through Ld. A.P.P. regarding all these matter ". 6. APPARENTLY in this case the petitioner has prayed for further investigation into her case on the ground that though she was assaulted and remained admitted in the hospital and was treated for that assault, yet the Investigating Officer concerned did not take the trouble of collecting the medical papers regarding her treatment in the hospital nor he cited the Doctor concerned, whose name has been mentioned as Dr. Amitava Bhattacharjee of Balurghat Hospital in her petition filed in G.R. Case No. 160/2009 on 25.03.2009, as witness in the said charge-sheet, nor the vital witnesses like her elder brother Sri Asit Ghosh and her father-in-law neighbour Sudhin Ghosh and his wife Smt. Mala Ghosh and her maternal uncle, who were conversant with the incident, were examined or cited as witnesses by the Investigating Officer. Though initially there was allegation in the First Information Report of the petitioner that they were given some cash and other articles including gold ornaments, cot, dressing table, steel almirah, utensils etc. Though initially there was allegation in the First Information Report of the petitioner that they were given some cash and other articles including gold ornaments, cot, dressing table, steel almirah, utensils etc. at the time of her marriage with opposite party No.2, which were given to her husband in her marriage by her elder brother as her father died about 7 years back, and which Stridhan was kept by her husband when she was taken to the hospital from her matrimonial home, yet the Investigating Officer did not seize those articles. As per the CD and seizure list only a marriage invitation card, a marriage registration deed and a xerox copy of an 'Aposhnama' were seized as alamat of the case. It also appears that the investigation into the matter has been done and charge-sheet has been submitted in a hasty manner inasmuch as FIR was lodged at the Police Station on 27.02.2009 while charge-sheet was submitted on 13.03.2009. No reason has been assigned as to why Charge-sheet was submitted in such a hasty manner without examination of material witnesses and seizure of vital documents and articles. As per the observation of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned the defacto-complainant would get opportunity during trial to inform the Court through learned A.P.P. regarding all these matters and during trial she would get definite chance to produce her treatment papers like admission slip, discharge slip etc. and that stage has not gone from her hand and if the said Court finds during trial that any material witness has been left out, whose evidence would have the potential to bring out the 'truth' before the Court, then the Court having every right being armed with the sanction under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code would bring that particular evidence before that as "Court witness" and would scrutiny evidentiary value of his/her evidence in accordance with law and it cannot run with any defacto-complainant just to prove one sided story as every case has two sides, two stories and Court cannot sit on the right of one side to the detriment of other side and the defacto- complainant would get opportunity during trial to inform the Court through ld. A.P.P. regarding all these matters, but this is not the correct approach for revelation of the truth. 7. A.P.P. regarding all these matters, but this is not the correct approach for revelation of the truth. 7. IN a G.R. case instituted on the basis of a First Information Report of the defacto-complainant proceeded as a State case the onus is upon the State or investigating agency to collect all the necessary evidence and materials to prove its case, and it is not for the defacto-complainant to procure evidence and materials for proving of the case, and in a State conducted case the defacto- complainant is a mere witness for the prosecution, inasmuch as in a G.R. case the State is the prosecutor. It may also be difficult for the defacto-complainant in a G.R. case to produce medical papers from the hospital where he or she is treated as a patient being referred by the police station. As regards the examination of vital witnesses and citing them as witness in the charge-sheet also it is incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to examine the vital witnesses, who are conversant with the incident of the case, during investigation, and cite them as witness in the charge-sheet, and any such suggestion or finding that the required vital witnesses may be examined under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., if necessary, is not the solution to examine vital witnesses, because Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code relates to 'Court witnesses' only whose examination Court requires necessary, and it is not also the option of any party to examine any witness of his liking as 'Court witness'. From that point of view it appears that the investigation conducted by the I.O. of the said case was not done in its correct direction and was defective and perfunctory and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was not also legal correct, proper and justified in her aforesaid finding, and consequently there has been failure of justice. Such finding of the learned Court below based on erroneous inference has also caused failure of justice. Investigation done by the Investigating Officer was not also complete in view of the fact that the medical papers relating to the treatment of the defacto-complainant were not collected and seized by the Investigation Officer and some material witnesses were not examined or cited as witness in the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer, for which the matter requires further investigation. 8. 8. IN view of provision of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code there is provision for further investigation in case of obtaining further oral or documentary evidence. As per the decision reported in 2004 C. Cr. LR (SC) 865 when defective investigation comes to light during course of trial, then it may be cured by further investigation, if circumstances so permit and the mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding the trial should not stand in the way of further investigation if that would help the Court in arriving at the truth and do real and substantial as well as effective justice and such further investigation may be done even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of a police report earlier submitted. 9. IT has also been decided by the decision reported in 2005(2) C Cr LR (Cal) 295 that Section 173(8) of the Code empowers police to make further investigation but, it does not debar a Magistrate to direct further investigation if the Magistrate finds that the earlier report submitted by police was on the basis of investigation, which was perfunctory and designedly defective. 10. THE decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner reported in 2008 (1) E.Cr.N. page 852 also has stated about reconsideration of the prayer for further investigation in the light of the observation made in the said decision. In view of the discussion noted above as well as on consideration of the submission of the learned Counsels for the parties, materials of the case dairy and other circumstances of the case it appears that the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer in G.R. case No. 160/2009 was not done in a proper and correct manner rather that was conducted in a perfunctory manner for which failure of justice has been caused and for which further investigation is necessary. Though no final opinion regarding the merits of the case is being expressed by this Court, yet for revelation of the truth as well as for prevention of the failure of justice such further investigation into the matter should be made. The opposite party Nos. Though no final opinion regarding the merits of the case is being expressed by this Court, yet for revelation of the truth as well as for prevention of the failure of justice such further investigation into the matter should be made. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 as accused persons of the said G.R. case would not also be prejudiced in any way even if the matter is investigated further in view of the fact that no charge has yet been framed against them and in the said G.R. case date has been fixed for copy and transfer of the same, which means that the said G.R. case is yet to be transferred for trial. 11. IT has also been held by the decision reported in AIR 1999 SCC 2332 at 2334 that : 10. "Power of the police to conduct further investigation, after laying final report, is recognised under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even after the Court took cognizance of any offence on the strength of the police report first submitted, it is open to the police to conduct further investigation. This has been so stated by this Court in Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1791 : (1979 Cri L.J. 1346). The only rider provided by the aforesaid decision is that it would be desirable that the police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation. 11. In 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) to suggest that the Court is obliged to hear the accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the Court would only result in encumbering the Court with the burden of searching for all the potential accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard. As law does not require it, we would not burden the Magistrate with such an obligation." 12. SO the Magistrate cannot be burdened with such an obligation. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. As law does not require it, we would not burden the Magistrate with such an obligation." 12. SO the Magistrate cannot be burdened with such an obligation. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2004 SC 2078 as mentioned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat in the impugned order also supports this view that "Further Investigation - Not ruled out merely on grounds that it may delay trial Even after Court takes cognizance of offence on earlier report submitted by Police, it is open to Police to Conduct further investigation in a proper manner on fresh facts Coming to light police should seek permission of Court for further investigation". 13. HAVING regard to the submission of learned Counsels for the parties and other circumstances noted above and on consideration of the materials of the C.D. and all other materials and circumstances it appears that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat was not legal, correct, proper and justified in passing the impugned order rejecting the petition of the petitioner dated 25.03.2009 praying for reinvestigation or further investigation into the matter. Accordingly, revisional application bearing No. CRR 1817/2009 is allowed. The impugned order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat on 04.04.2009 rejecting the petition of the petitioner dated 25.03.2009 filed in G.R. case No. 160/2009 arising out of Balurghat police station case No. 72 dated 27.02.2009, is hereby set aside. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat is 14. DIRECTED to dispose of the petitioner's prayer for further investigation in the light of the observations made hereinabove and to proceed further in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat, for information and compliance.