SAGARMAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 CrPC is directed against the order dated 01.07.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur (for short 'the trial Court' hereinafter) in FIR No. 262/05 Police Station, Sardarpura, Jodhpur whereby the trial Court declined to accept the negative final report submitted by the police and directed to reinvestigate the said crime report in exercise of the power under Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code' hereinafter) on the points raised by complainant in his application. Aggrieved by order impugned to the extent directing the police to reinvestigate matter on the points suggested by complainant, petitioners have filed instant petition.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners that Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to direct further investigation but it is not the domain of the Court to direct the police to further investigate the matter in the line suggested either by the complainant or by the Court. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 of the Code provides that nothing in this Section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the ,officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-section (2). According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, after submitting the report under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, It is not the case of the prosecution that the police obtained further evidence oral or documentary. It was at the instance of the complainant, the matter was sent for further investigation but the trial Court directed the police to investigate on the points suggested by the complainant and to this extent 'the order impugned is bad in law. Learned Counsel for the petitioners have relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in popular Muthiah v. State, Represented by Inspector of Police, (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 245 , wherein Hon'ble Apex Court held that when a power under Section 173 (8) CrPC is exercised, the Court ordinarily should not interfere with the statutory power of the investigating agency. It cannot issue directions to investigate the case from a particular angle or by a particular agency. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that in the instant case, not only the High Court had asked reinvestigation into the matter, but also directed examination of the witnesses who had not been cited as prosecution witnesses. It furthermore directed prosecution of the appellant which was unwarranted in law.