SUBRAMANIAN Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the order dated 18.7.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy in SC. NO. 7/2012, directing the investigating agency to reopen the investigation, conduct further investigation by an Officer superior to the investigating officer, who conducted the investigation earlier and to file a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate and for further direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate to recommit the matter for Sessions, after final report being filed by the investigating agency. The short facts of the case are as follows:-On 8.12.2004, the first Petitioner's wife, namely Radha committed suicide and on the complaint made by the father of the deceased, the Respondent conducted investigation and laid a charge sheet under Section 306 of IPC. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and was taken on file in SC. No. 7/2012 and was made over to the Mahila Court, Trichy for trial. Before the Mahila Court, Trichy, totally 17 witnesses witnesses were examined and the matter was posted for examination of the Petitioners/A1 and A2 under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. When the matter stood thus, the Mahila Court found several lapses in the investigation and therefore, felt that further investigation was necessary and accordingly, sent the records to the Sessions Judge. The learned Principal Sessions Judge struck down the entire trial proceedings, reopened the investigation and directed the investigating agency to conduct further investigation and to file a report. Accordingly, the matter was remitted back to the Magistrate Court. The said order has been assailed by the Petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 and A2 before the Trial Court, by way of this criminal revision petition.

(2.) Mr. T. Senthil Kumar, the learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that the Sessions Judge failed to consider that once a charge sheet was filed, pursuant to which, charges had been framed against the accused, it was no longer open to the Sessions Judge to suo-motu order for further investigation and remit the matter to the Magistrate. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court 2009 (Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal and others,3 SCC(Cri) 1051) and,(Ram Lal Narang and State (Delhi Administration) to contend that only the Police have power to further investigate even after the report is filed in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr. P.C., but the Magistrate cannot suo-motu exercise jurisdiction for further investigation. The learned counsel would contend that the Sessions Judge cannot suo-motu exercise jurisdiction and order further investigation and therefore, the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge is unsustainable. The learned counsel would submit that the only course of action open to the Sessions Judge was to take recourse to the provisions of Section 319 of the Code, if any of the accused has to be added or to Section 216 of the Code for altering the charges and to include any of the offence that has been omitted at the time of framing of charges.

(3.) On the other hand, Mrs. S. Prabha, the learned Government Advocate argued that the court has a right to summon other accused and also order for addition of other evidence against the accused, once the court finds that there is warrant to do it. The learned Government Advocate would further submit that the Mahila Court has found several lapses in the investigation, which was also affirmed by the Sessions Judge, which made him to order further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of Cr. P.C.