This revision has been preferred against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy in C.M.P.No.2503 of 2007 in C.C.No.526 of 2006, wherein by order dated 11.08.2008, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the petition seeking an order for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.
2. The background of the case is as follows:
The petitioner filed a complaint before the first respondent police on 19.02.2006, alleging offences under
Sections 294(b),323,498-A and
406 I.P.C. against her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and other relatives of her husband. Such complaint was registered in Crime No.8 of 2006. Upon the first respondent police filing a charge sheet only against the husband of the complainant, she moved Crl.O.P(MD)No.5208 of 2007, before this Court alleging that since she was not posted of the developments, she was incapacitated from raising her objection before the learned Judicial Magistrate. This Court by order dated 26.06.2007 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5208 of 2007 permitted the petitioner herein to move a petition under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. before the lower Court. Armed with such order, the petitioner moved C.M.P.No.2503 of 2007, the order in which, is under challenge herein. The lower Court heard the petitioner and also the first respondent police in the matter and passed a detailed order on 11.08.2008.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the investigation conducted by the first respondent police was a most perfunctory one; that important witnesses had not been examined; that persons, who were examined, were persons not connected with the matter in any manner and that as a result of such improper investigation, all accused persons except the husband had been let off.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner impresses that had the complainant being given notice, when the charge sheet was taken on file, the complainant could have brought forth the fact of improper investigation done in the case. This argument misses the point that the purpose of orders in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5208 of 2007 on 26.06.2007, permitting the petitioner herein to move a petition under
Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. before the lower Court, was to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to state her case before the lower Court, which came to be done by the filing of C.M.P.No.2503 of 2007, pursuant to the order of this Court.
5. It is to be remembered that in appreciating the orders of the lower Court in C.M.P.No.2503 of 2007, this Court is entering upon the area of discretion reserved for the learned Judicial Magistrates and this Court should be slow in interfering with the same. Keeping this in mind, on perusal of the order of the lower Court, it is seen that the lower Court in arriving at the finding of dismissing the petition for further investigation, considered that though the first accused had not been charged for offence under
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, the Investigating Officer had included the said offence in the charge sheet. It also took into consideration the fact that the statement of independent witnesses examined, revealed that the dispute between the petitioner and her husband arose due to the nature of his employment and that the same was the root cause of the problem between them, which had led to the filing of the complaint. The lower Court also found that the veracity or otherwise of 161(3) Cr.P.C. statements could be considered only after the evidence of the witnesses in the box. The lower Court took into consideration one other aspect of the case viz., that the marriage of the complainant took place on 07.05.2003; that her husband left for America after 16 days; that after his return on 11.06.2003, the complainant and her husband resided at Chennai and within the short span of time, when the complainant lived with her husband's family, there would not have been much opportunity for the family members to have committed the offences alleged, when the allegations of wrong doing mainly were against the husband, who had been ill-treating her. The lower Court found that in the course of investigation, none of the witnesses spoke of any wrong doing by the persons, who were arrayed as accused 2 to 6 in the complaint. The investigating agency found of offence under
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act made out. After obtaining the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, the alleged offenders 2 to 6 were dropped from the array of accused. On an overall consideration, the lower Court found no wrong in the investigation.
6. On consideration of the rival submissions and the order of the lower Court, this Court is unable to find anything, which warrants interference. The lower Court had rightly referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Popular Muthaiah v. State represented by the Inspector of Police reported in (2006)3 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 245 for the proposition that in exercising the jurisdiction, it would be improper, to direct that the investigation should be made from a particular angle or by a particular agency.
7. The complaint was preferred on 19.02.2006 and charge sheet was filed before the lower Court on 30.08.2006. The order of this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5208 of 2007 was of the date 26.06.2007. In the counter of objections filed by the prosecution, it is alleged that inspite of summons proceeding from the lower Court, the petitioner had chosen to keep away from the witness box till such time, the order in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5208 of 2007 was obtained at the hands of this Court. The petitioner's intention is only to protract the proceedings and have the damocles sword hanging over the head of the family members of the husband. In the circumstances of the case, this Court finds no merit in the revision as the order of the lower court is based on good reasons. As regards the dropping of offence under
Section 406 I.P.C. in the charge sheet, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that all articles given by the complainant at the time of marriage have been returned to her under due acknowledgement. Such fact may be tested, if need be, by the lower Court, at the trial. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
smn To
1.The Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Trichy.
2.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Ponmalai, Trichy.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.