Orissa High Court
Laxmipriya Pradhan vs State Of Orissa & Others ……. … on 4 March, 2025
THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No. 2558 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973)
Laxmipriya Pradhan ....... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Orissa & others ....... Opposite Parties
For the Petitioner : Mr. Siddharth Samal,
Advocate
For the Opp. Parties : Mr. S.J. Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
Date of Hearing: 13.02.2025 Date of Judgment: 04.03.2025
S.S. Mishra, J. The present petition is preferred under Section 482
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking to quash
the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate (SDJM), Kamakhyanagar, in G.R. Case No.
326/2017, whereby the learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the
petitioner seeking for a direction to police for further investigation.
Page 1 of 12
2. The petitioner, who is the informant in the case, contends
that the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer (IO)
was incomplete and improper, leading to a miscarriage of justice.
It is urged that the learned Magistrate has failed to appreciate the
material irregularities in the investigation and has erroneously
declined to order further investigation under Section 173(8)
Cr.P.C.
3. The marriage between the petitioner and accused Trilochan
Pradhan was solemnized on 08.02.2017 at village Bangura,
District Dhenkanal. Alleging cruelty, harassment, and demands
for dowry by the accused persons, the petitioner lodged an FIR
on 18.10.2017 at Kamakshyanagar Police Station, leading to the
registration of Kamakshyanagar P.S. Case No. 209/2017 under
Sections 498-A, 341, 294, 323, 506, 34 IPC and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The FIR named nine accused
persons, including the husband, mother-in-law of the petitioner
and her neighbors as well.
4. Upon completion of the investigation, the Investigating
Officer submitted a charge sheet on 30.04.2018, implicating only
Trilochan Pradhan (husband) and Malati Pradhan (mother-in-
Page 2 of 12
law), while exonerating the remaining accused persons for want
of any material evidence against them. On 11.05.2018, the
learned SDJM, Kamakhyanagar, took cognizance of the offences
and issued summons to the accused persons to face trial. The
petitioner moved an application seeking reinvestigation of the
case vis-à-vis the accused persons those who have been dropped
by the investigating officer. The trial Court while dealing with
the said application vide its order dated 20.01.2021, observed as
under:
“A petition is filed under the signature of one
Laxmipriya Pradhan describing herself as the
informant of the case. In the petition, it is
prayed to pass an order for reinvestigation of
the case. Such a prayer is not made by the
prosecution through the learned APP.
Investigation is already over the charge sheet
has already been submitted. Now the evidence
of the witnesses is being taken up. So, at this
stage, petition on behalf a private party to
direct further investigation of this case cannot
be entertained. Hence, the petition stands
rejected. Put up on 29.01.2021 for hearing.”
5. Dissatisfied with the incomplete and inadequate
investigation, the petitioner moved an application before the
learned Magistrate, seeking reinvestigation of the case. However,
by order dated 20.01.2021, the learned Magistrate rejected the
application primarily on the following grounds:
Page 3 of 12
(i) The prayer for reinvestigation was not made by the
prosecution through the Assistant Public Prosecutor
(APP);
(ii) The investigation had already been concluded, and
the charge sheet had been submitted;
(iii) The trial was already in progress, and evidence of
witnesses was being recorded;
(iv) There was substantial delay in filing the application
seeking reinvestigation; and
(v) The application was filed by the informant, who is a
private party, and therefore had no locus standi to seek
reinvestigation.
6. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached this
Court by filing CRLMC No. 1073/2021, which was disposed of
on 21.02.2024. This Court observed that the learned Trial Court
does have the power to direct reinvestigation or further
investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., irrespective of
whether such an application is filed by the prosecution or the
informant. It was further held that the informant has the locus
Page 4 of 12
standi to seek further investigation, and accordingly, the learned
Magistrate was directed to reconsider the application and pass a
speaking order. The observation made by this Court in its order
dtd. 21.02.2024 is relevant to be reproduced herein under:
8. This Court on a careful analysis of the
impugned rejection order under Annexure-6
dated 20.01.2021 observes that the learned
trial Court has been swayed away by the fact
that the application has been made by the
informant and not by the APP representing
the prosecution. This Court at this juncture
however observes that the power to direct for
reinvestigation lies with the discretion of the
Court conducting the trial irrespective of the
fact as to who has filed such an application.
the informant is competent to bring such an
application. Moreover, the informant is
competent to bring such application. Other
than that no reason has been assigned in the
impugned order.
9. In such view of the matter, the impugned
rejection order is unsustainable in law.
Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside.
Further, the matter is remanded to the
learned S.D.J.M.,Kamakhyanagar to
reconsider the application of the Petitioner-
informant, Prosecution as well as the
accused and thereafter pass a speaking
order. It is further directed that the learned
trial court shall do well to dispose of the
application in Annexure-5 by passing a
speaking order within six weeks from the
date of passing such order.
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the learned Magistrate
Page 5 of 12
reconsidered the matter, but again rejected the prayer for further
investigation vide impugned order dated 11.03.2024, leading to
the present petition. The impugned order reads as under:
“On perusal of the contention of the petition
filed on behalf of the prosecutrix, it is found
that prayer has been made for direction to re-
investigate the case as because the I.O during
course of his investigation willfully excluded
the name of persons namely Gyani Samal,
Rama Samal, Ahalya Pradhan, Keshab
Chandra Bag, Sabita Pradhan, Gobinda
Kissan and Purna Chandra Kissan from the
charge sheet though the FIR has been
registered in their names. But in the instant
case, as the cognizance has already been
taken earlier, at this stage if further re-
investigation will be directed that shall
amount to review of its own order which is
passed by this Court on dtd. 11.05.2018 but
the criminal Court (Judicial magistrate) has
no power/jurisdiction to review its own order.
In this regard, it is also held by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Ramakanta Singh
Vs. State of Jharkhand and another (2023). In
view of the above discussion and finding of the
Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to direct
the I.O for re-investigation of this case.
Accordingly, the petition on dtd. 05.03.2024
filed on behalf of the prosecution stands
rejected being devoid of merit.”
The trial Court has again rejected the application of the petitioner
on the ground that it has no jurisdiction. The said order is not in
consonance with the direction made by the coordinate bench of
Page 6 of 12
this Court by the order dated 21.02.2024. Hence, technically
speaking the impugned order being not in consonance with the
direction of this Court should have been set aside. However,
regard being had to the fact that this is the second round of
litigation and the litigation is prolonging for no reason, this Court
feels it appropriate to delve into the issue on merits and decide
the case as to whether further investigation is indeed warranted in
the facts of this case.
8. Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the investigation conducted by the Investigating Officer was
manifestly defective, incomplete, and failed to incorporate
material aspects of the case. It is contended that serious
allegations of attempt to murder and use of weapons (gun, knife,
LPG cylinder) were omitted from the charge sheet, despite these
being categorically mentioned in the FIR.
9. It is further argued that the Odia translation of the FIR
misrepresented the actual allegations, leading to an incorrect
framing of charges. Moreover, the statements of witnesses
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. do not reflect the essential
facts of the incident, demonstrating a lack of diligence on the part
Page 7 of 12
of the Investigating Officer in elucidating the truth.
10. The petitioner further contended that the learned Magistrate
has failed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.,
despite there being palpable lapses in the investigation. It is
argued that the power to direct further investigation is an inherent
power of the Magistrate, and in the present case, the failure to
exercise such power has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
11. Per contra, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the State
submits that the investigation was conducted fairly and in
accordance with law, and there was sufficient material before the
Investigating Officer to proceed with the case. It is further
contended that the trial is already at an advanced stage, and
ordering further investigation at this juncture would only cause
unnecessary delay.
12. It is also submitted that the statements of witnesses recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are consistent, and there is no
suppression of material facts by the Investigating Officer. It is
further argued that the decision of the Investigating Officer in
excluding certain accused persons from the charge sheet was
based on the available evidence, and therefore, no interference is
Page 8 of 12
warranted by this Court in the present proceeding.
13. The power of a Magistrate to direct further investigation
under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is well recognized. However, this
power must be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of
course. The purpose of further investigation is to ensure a fair
trial by addressing material omissions or lapses in the initial
investigation.
14. However, once a charge sheet has been filed and cognizance
has been taken, the threshold for allowing further investigation is
higher. Such an order should be passed only when the
deficiencies in the investigation are so fundamental that they
affect the fairness of the trial itself. The learned Magistrate, in the
present case, has examined the record and found no such
compelling reason to interfere with the investigation.
15. While an informant has the right to seek further
investigation, such a request cannot be entertained solely on the
ground of dissatisfaction with the charge sheet. The criminal
justice system does not provide for multiple rounds of
investigation merely because the informant believes that certain
aspects were not properly addressed. It is also pertinent to note
Page 9 of 12
that the informant is not without remedy. If the petitioner
believes that material facts have been ignored, she may file a
protest petition before the Magistrate, urging the court to
consider additional evidence or summon certain witnesses.
During the course of the trial, if any evidence comes on record
against the accused who were previously excluded in the
investigation, the trial Court under Section 319 of the Criminal
Procedure Code can even summon those accused. The case of
Deokinandan and Ors. vs State of U.P. And Ors., 1996CRILJ61
has accurately dealt with such issue and has held thus:
“Therefore, the correct legal position, as laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is that on a
consideration of the police report under Section
173(2), a Magistrate can take cognizance of the
offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Code,
though it is also open for him to proceed under
Sections 200 and 202, Cr.P.C. also. The
observation that has been relied upon by the
learned single Judge in Ahibaran Singh’s case
would thus only mean that it is open to the
Magistrate to proceed in such a case by treating
the protest petition to be complaint but it is not
mandatory for him to do so. He can accept the
protest petition and take cognizance on the basis
of the police report also. Accordingly, Ahibaran
Singh’s case cannot be held to be a good law in
view of the observation and decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in M/s. India Carat Pvt.
Limited’s case.”
16. A balance must be maintained between ensuring a fair trial
Page 10 of 12
and protecting the right of the accused to a speedy trial, which is
a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the
present case, the charge sheet was filed in the year 2018, and the
trial has been ongoing since then, further investigation at this
stage would result in unwarranted delay, affecting the accused’s
right to a fair and timely trial. Thus, permitting further
investigation would reopen the matter at a stage where witnesses
have already been examined, leading to procedural
complications. Even on merit, except bold and general allegation
against the petitioner, some of whom are neighbors of the
complainant, there is no specific overt act attributed to the
petitioner. General tendency to roping in multiple family
members in the matrimonial disputes has been emphatically
condemned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs
State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2014 SC 2756 and K. Subba Rao
vs State of Telangana, reported in AIR 2018 SC 4009.
Therefore, general allegations without substantive evidence and
on the exaggerated accusations in the FIR are only aimed at
harassing the family members of the husband in the matrimonial
case. This case apparently is of no exception. Therefore, the trial
Court has rightly rejected the prayer of the complainant for
Page 11 of 12
reinvestigation/further investigation.
17. Accordingly, this Court declines to give indulgence to the
petitioner. Hence the CRLMC is dismissed.
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
The 4th of March, 2025/ Ashok
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Designation: Secretary
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 12-Mar-2025 19:06:42
Page 12 of 12
[ad_1]
Source link