BHANWAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 8. 9. 1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli whereby cognizance for offences under Sections 304, 498- A, 201 and 202 of the IPC was taken against the accused petitioners.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix giving rise to this petition may be first noticed briefly. One Rameshwar Prasad Sharma lodged a written report with Police Station Karauli at 12. 35 PM on 29. 6. 1997 alleging therein that his daughter, Babli @ Sunita, was married to Hemraj S/o accused petitioner Bhanwar Lal on 19. 11. 1996. The informant gave cash and articles in dowry. When, however, his daughter returned from the house of her in-laws to the parents soon after marriage, she told that her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law and one sister-in-law used to harass her for payment of dowry and also gave beating. Whenever thereafter Sunita came to her parents to Hindaun, every now and then she would narrate the same story to the wife of the informant namely Smt. Savitri Devi and his son Dev Vrat and his elder daughter Pushpa. It was alleged that Hemraj came to their house in the month of May, 1996 and he demanded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as dowry which the informant refused to give. Hemraj that time threatened the informant that this would not be good for their daughter. A fortnight thereafter, the daughter of the informant also came to Hindaun and told her parents that her in- laws used to torture her for dowry. It was thereafter that Hemraj came to the place of the informant in the month of July and that time he told him that they should give five articles of Silver and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in cash, clothes and one gold chain of two tolas at the time of ceremony of the birth of child to their daughter. The informant that time assured him that he would give whatever was possible for him. It was alleged that Hemraj at that time extended a threat and took his daughter to Karauli. It was thereafter that the complainant received an information at about 3-4 P. M. , a day before the date of lodging of FIR that his daughter has been killed. It was alleged that her in-laws have cremated her dead body without even informing the complainant and his family. It was on the day of lodging of FIR that one Bhanwar Lal informed the complainant that he had heard that death of his daughter had taken place in mysterious circumstances. Complainant also enquired from the in-laws of the daughter, but they were not in a position to give a satisfactory explanation as to how his daughter died.

(3.) THE aforesaid provision recognizes the power of investigating agency to undertake further investigation in respect of an offence after it has forwarded its report to a Magistrate who is empowered to take cognizance on a police report as prescribed by sub-section (2) of Section 173. A co-ordinate bench of this Court in Nooruddin, supra held that `titamba' (supplementary) statements recorded after three years of earlier statements of prosecution witnesses could not be treated as further investigation and a supplementary charge sheet could not be filed without making any further investigation and without obtaining further evidence. It was therefore not permissible for the investigating agency to file charge sheet and therefore the charge sheet filed by the police was quashed. THE judgment of Patna High Court in Resham Lal Yadav, supra, which has been cited in the present case too, was also relied on by the accused in Nooruddin, supra. In Resham Lal Yadav, the learned Single Judge of Patna High Court held that subsequent charge sheet could not be submitted without further investigation by the police and without further evidence against the accused petitioner.