LAWS(DLH)-2005-1-47

NAVDEEP Vs. STATE

Decided On January 24, 2005
NAVDEEP Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sunita, wife of the petitioner Navdeep died of burn injuries on 5.8.2001. On 3.8.2001 an information was received by sub inspector Kishan Kumar of PS Mandavli in respect of the incident in which Sunita had put kerosene oil on herself. Sunita's statement was recorded by the SDM, Preet Vihar. In her statement she attributed burn injuries to an accident. The mother of the deceased made a statement indicting the petitioner. Statements on some other witnesses were recorded and thereafter a challan u/s 498 IPC was filed. However, the Magistrate observed that a case should have been registered u/s 304B & 498 A IPC. He found that the local police had not done sufficient investigation. Vide order dated 9.5.2002, he directed the DCP (East) to conduct an inquiry into the whole episode and to take action against any official if found guilty for any lapse or inaction and to file a report. This order was challenged before this court and vide order dated 18.2.2003, this Court again directed that compliance of the Magistrate's order dated 9.5.2002 be made. Subsequent to the further investigation the police filed a report saying that some police officials had been censured. However no supplementary challan was filed. Assistant Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the complainant requested the Magistrate for ordering further investigation. After hearing the accused and the prosecution, the Magistrate passed the impugned order directing the Ahlmed to return the file to the investigation and directed DCP(East) to monitor the investigation so that truth can come out.

(2.) The petitioner challenges this order only on legal grounds. According to his counsel, the Magistrate has no powers to order further investigation. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja 2003(2) JCC 1164 and Dr. Kapil Garg vs. State 2003 (3) JCC 1488.

(3.) None of the two judgments however provide any support to the plea raised by the petitioner. Section 173(8) clearly gives the power to order further investigation.