- (1.) Y. R. Tripathi, J. The petitioners, who are accused in Case Crime No. 282 of 2002. F. I. R. of which was lodged by opposite party No. 3 at P. S. Kotwali Nagar, District Gonda, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as the Code, for quashing of the order dated 31-3-2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, directing thereby re-investigation of the case. They have also prayed for quashing of the order, dated 31-7-2003 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gonda whereby he has dismissed their Revision No. 189 of 2003.
(2.) IT appears that Ram Bahadur lodged an F. I. R. at Crime No. 282 of 2002, alleging, therein that after the marriage of his daughter with petitioner No. 1 on 12th May, 1999, the petitioners summoned him at their house and made demand of hero honda motocrycle, colour TV, golden chain and a buffalo in dowry threatening him threatened that if he failed to meet out their demand, they would not take vidai of his daughter and the petitioner No. 1 would contact another marriage. The police investigated the offence and presented, final report. As it transpires from the order of the learned Magistrate, before accepting the final report, he sent a notice to opposite party No. 3 who lodged a protest application accompanied by certain affidavits and a recommendation by Women Commission about re- investigation of the case. The learned Magistrate after hearing opposite parties and perusing the protest application and accompanying papers directed for re-investigation of the case through his order dated 31-3-2003. The petitioners preferred a revision against the said order of the Magistrate which failed to bear fruit. Aggrieved from both the orders, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the aforesaid orders mainly on the ground that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to make an order for re- investigation. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record, I find that though even after the submission of police report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code, the police has the power of further investigation under sub-section (8) thereof, but nowhere it has been given the power for fresh investigation or re-investigation. Further investigation, as it appears from the perusal of the provisions of Section 173 of the Code, has to be made in the continuation of earlier investigation and not afresh wiping but the earlier investigation altogether. It would also be found that the Magistrate has not made the order for re-investigation merely after going through the report but he has also taken into consideration certain affidavits as also an order of Women Commission for making re-investigation. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner also finds support from the law laid down by the apex Court in K. Chandra Sekhar etc. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 1998 (2) JIC 1015 (SC) : 1998 (37) ACC 136 (SC), wherein it has categorically been held that the police after submission of its report under sub-section (2) of the Code has no power of re-investigation. In view of the aforesaid discussions aforesaid, I find that the trial Court has committed a patent error in making a direction for re-investigation of the case and the Revisional Court too has illegally exercised, its jurisdiction in dismissing the revision. The impugned orders, therefore, not being legally sustainable are liable to be quashed. This petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned orders are quashed. It will, however, be open to the learned Court below to make an order afresh in accordance with law. Petition allowed. .;