VINAY KUMAR SETHIA Vs. VINITA SETHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against order dated 10th of April, 2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Howrah in criminal revision No.28 of 2013 by way of affirming the order dated 30th January, 2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Howrah in G. R. Case No.1726 of 2010 arising out of Golabari Police Station case No.119 dated 1st of May, 2010.

(2.) IT appears that O. P. 1 Vinita Sethia lodged one complaint under Section 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian 2 Penal Code against present petitioners being husband and other in -laws resulting initiation of Golabari P. S. Case No.119 dated 1st May, 2010. After investigation police submitted charge sheet being No.302 of 2010 dated 23.10.2010 under Section 498A, 406 and 34 of Indian Penal Code against the present petitioners showing seizure of six items as stridhan properties from the premises of the present petitioners. After about three months of submission of said charge sheet, Golabari P. S. made a prayer to the CJM on 18.01.2011 for further investigation of the case as a major portion of stridhan properties could not be recovered during earlier investigation and prayed for issuance of search warrant. Learned CJM refused said prayer of issuance of search warrant as police has sufficient power for further investigation as well as for recovery of articles by search. Complainant housewife, however, made a prayer on 28.06.2012 to the Commissioner of Police, Howrah for further investigation of the case for recovery of her remaining ornaments and stridhan properties which were still lying in the custody of the accused persons. 3 Commissioner of Police, Howrah assigned the case to the officer in -charge of Women P.S. Howrah for further investigation of the case and accordingly S. I. Surabhi Pal took further investigation for recovery of remaining stridhan properties. Thereafter the prayer was made by the investigating agency for issuance of search warrant which was allowed by learned CJM by his order 30th of January, 2013.

(3.) MR . Shiv Shankar Banerjee appearing for the petitioners submits that as per complaint there was a list of articles alleged to be given to the defacto complainant wife by two persons named therein but police did not ascertain from them whether those articles were really given by them to the O. P. No.1 defacto complainant or not. He further 4 submits that as there was a previous search resulting alleged recovery of six items and no other item, then any further direction of further search would be futile and it will only cause harassment and embarrassment to the present petitioners being husband and other in -laws. He next submits that in the name of the recovery of stridhan properties I. O. cannot be permitted to search not only the house of the present petitioners but also the house of their relations and friends. According to Mr. Banerjee the order impugned is not sustainable in law and should be set aside by this Court exercising its extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.