Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 882 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal Patel v. State of Rajasthan

2011-05-03

KAILASH CHANDRA JOSHI

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - The question involved in this SB Criminal Misc. Petition is regarding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to direct re-investigation of a case from time to time as laid down under sub-section (8) of Section 173 Cr.P.C. It arises out of an order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate , Dungarpur dated 04.04.2011 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate , while disagreeing with the findings of the final report of the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Dungarpur ordered to re-investigate the case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant Smt.Meenakshi filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur on 01.09.2010 alleging that present petitioner Shanker Lal Patel persuaded her to take diverse from her earlier husband and then after taking diverse from her earlier husband he compelled her to marry him at the Mahadev Temple, Nathdwara and he took various photographs of the marriage and prepared some documents. After living with her for some time Shanker Lal went to Kuwait and after returning from Kuwait he started to give threatening to her on telephone also and also by publishing the photographs and pressurised her to act as prostitute. Thereupon the complainant filed a complaint in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dungarpur, who in turn forwarded the same under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for investigation and registering the case. Thereupon FIR No.211/2010 was registered and the investigation commenced. After the investigation , police submitted the final report on the ground of compromise between the parties. 3. The learned trial court, after perusal of the first information report , passed the impugned order dated 04.04.2011 and being aggrieved by this order, the present petitioner has filed this SB Criminal Misc . Petition. 4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the learned trial court dated 04.04.2011 is against the facts and record and contrary to the provisions of law because the order of the learned trial court amounts to abuse of the process of law. 5. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the investigation is the prerogative of the police and the court cannot interfere the police to investigate the case in a particular manner, therefore, while passing the order dated 04.04.2011 amounts nothing but to sit over the process in a particular manner, which is not permissible under the law. 6. 5. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the investigation is the prerogative of the police and the court cannot interfere the police to investigate the case in a particular manner, therefore, while passing the order dated 04.04.2011 amounts nothing but to sit over the process in a particular manner, which is not permissible under the law. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that even from the material alleged in the complaint, prima facie no case of deceit to the complainant is made out. Therefore, the order dated 04.04.2011 may be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his arguments relied on the following judgments:- 1. Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [2009 (2) Cri. Court Cases 721 (SC)] 2. Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna & Anr. [2009 (2) WLC (SC) Cri. 392]. 8. Per contra the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the order of the learned trial court cannot be said to be against the provisions of the law because the sum and substance of the order dated 04.04.2011 is to further investigate the matter and a specific question has been framed by the court that investigation may be conducted regarding the fact of the compromise between the parties and the factual position may be brought on record by way of further investigation on this point. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor further contended that even on relying upon the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order dated 04.04.2011, cannot be said to be abuse of the process of law, which deserves to be set aside because although the learned trial court mentioned in its order dated 04.04.2011 to re-investigate, whereas the sequence of the order shows that the matter was sent for further investigation on the point of compromise and for bringing this fact on record. 10. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the order dated 04.04.2011 along with the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. In Rama Chaudhary's case (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that further investigation means an additional/more or supplemental and further investigation is the continuation of the earlier investigation and not a fresh investigation. 12. The learned trial court in the impugned order also ordered the police to investigate on the point of compromise only and to bring that fact on record. 13. 12. The learned trial court in the impugned order also ordered the police to investigate on the point of compromise only and to bring that fact on record. 13. In Kishan Lal 's case (supra) where the Magistrate ordered that several issues were not disclosed , this order was held to be vague and not clear on what point reinvestigation was necessary and the order of the learned trial court has been set aside as held by the High Court and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble apex court, whereas in the present case the learned trial court framed a specific question regarding the fact of the compromise and to bring the real facts regarding the compromise on record. Accordingly, the facts of the two authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are different from the facts of the present case and both these authorities support the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor because the learned trial court framed a specific issue on which the investigation is to be conducted by the investigating officer. 14. In my considered view, the order of the learned trial court cannot be said to be abuse of the process of law or against the established principles of law as pronounced by the Hon'ble apex court from time to time. 15. Resultantly, this criminal misc. petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned trial court dated 04.04.2011 is maintained.Petition Dismissed. *******