ARVIND GOPAL KRISHNA CHAWDA Vs. SUNITHA GOPAL CHAWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the order dated 15.12.2015 passed in Crl.M.P. No. 6484 of 2015 in C.C.No.283 of 2013 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Mahila Court), Hyderabad, wherein and where under an application filed by the State seeking further investigation was allowed, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Sections 397 and 401 Crimial P.C.

(2.) On the basis of a report given by the first respondent a case in Crime No.151 of 2013 of Women Police Station, D.D. C.C.S., Hyderabad, came to be registered against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The police investigated into the said crime and filed a charge sheet which was taken on file as C.C. No. 283 of 2013 for the above mentioned offences. Thereafter, an application came to be filed by the accused seeking discharge from the case. Thereafter, the first respondent filed an application under Sec. 216 Crimial P.C. through the prosecution vide Crl. M.P. No. 3226 of 2015 for alteration of charges and addition of charges for the offences punishable under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the SC/ST Act ) and also filed Crl. M.P. No. 3225 of 2015 seeking further investigation for the purpose of filing of an additional charge sheet. Later a memo came to be filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, WPS, DD, CCS, Hyderabad, seeking further investigation. After considering the rival arguments as to the scope of admissibility of the said memo and also as to whether the ingredients constituting the said offences are made out or not, the trial Court allowed the memo. Challenging the same, the present revision came to be filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that the impugned order which came to be passed is bereft of any reasons. It is his case that except extracting the judgments no reasons are given as to why it requires further investigation. He further submits that re-investigation cannot be to the satisfaction of the informant and the Court on being satisfied that the matter requires further investigation can order re-investigation. He also submits that since the averments in the First Information Report and 161 Crimial P.C. Statements do not anywhere indicate offences punishable under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, he seeks interference with the impugned order. Apart from that he further submits that the present memo came to be filed at a belated stage. He lastly urges that in the absence of any new material before the Court, ordering further investigation is unwarranted.