LANKA VANI Vs. STATE OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners 1 and 2/A-2 and A-3 in C.C. No. 588 of 2009 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada are questioning order dated 04.01.2010 of the lower court passed therein, by which the lower court permitted filing of additional report as prayed for. Originally, on report given by the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant, Gannavaram police of Vijayawada city registered case in Crime No. 283 of 2009 for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC against A-1 to A-3. A-1 is husband of the defacto- complainant. The petitioners 1 and 2/A-2 and A-3 are parents of A-1. After investigation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Gannavaram police station filed charge sheet against A-1 only as sole accused in the lower court. In the charge sheet/final report, it is stated that the investigating officer who is the Sub Inspector of Police caused enquiries in the neighbourhood at Visakhapatnam where the defacto-complainant lead marital life with A-1, and examined two witnesses and that the said evidence reveals that there is no substantial evidence available against the petitioners 1 and 2 who are mother-in-law and father-in- law of the 2nd respondent and that they are in no way concerned with harassment as stated by the 2nd respondent and that therefore, their names are deleted from the list of accused. Further, it is stated in the charge sheet that witnesses Nos.6 and 7 of the charge sheet stated that A-1 was only harassing the 2nd respondent and that A-2 and A-3 are in no way concerned and they never involved in harassment of their daughter-in-law.

(2.) While so, the same Sub Inspector of Police, Gannavaram Police Station filed memo in C.C .No. 588 of 2009 in the lower court requesting the lower court to treat A-2 and A-3 as accused in addition to A-1 as they also harassed their daughter-in-law mentally and physically in demanding additional dowry; and requesting the court to finalise the case as per additional charge sheet filed in this case. No provision of law is quoted in that memo by the Sub Inspector of Police. It is stated in that memo that during the course of further investigation after filing of charge sheet and taking cognizance by the court, he made further enquiry about involvement of A-2 and A-3 at Gannavaram and examined four more witnesses and recorded their detailed statements in Part-II case diary. It is not stated in the memo at whose instance, he made further investigation in this case after filing of final report/charge sheet under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the lower court and after it was taken cognizance by the lower court. No permission is taken by the investigating officer from the lower court for making further investigation. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer to Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, 2004 AIR(SCW) 2063 of the Supreme Court dealing with the present situation and it was held therein:

(3.) After surveying case law on this subject including the above mentioned reported judgment of the Supreme court in Hasanbhai, Single Judge of this Court in Chetti Krishna Rao v. State of A.P., 2005 2 ALD(Cri) 1 (AP) upheld filing of additional charge sheet by C.I.D., against two more accused persons in addition to three accused persons who were already charge sheeted by the local police. It was held therein: