SIDDHARTHA CHATTOPADHYAY, J. - (1.) The petitioner herein challenges the impugned order dated 19th August, 2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court Sealdah in G.R. Case No. 2664 of 2009 which arose out of Tala Police Station Case No. 48 of 2009. According to the petitioner her prayer for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. has been wrongly rejected by the learned Court concerned.
(2.) This case has a chequered history. Factual aspect of this case requires to be revisited. According to the petitioner, she is the wife of the private opposite party. She was subjected to torture. Her marriage was registered under Special Marriage Act on 1st February, 2003. Thereafter she was taken to Kali Temple and the opposite party put vermillion on her forehead and put the conch bangles on the wrist of the complainant by chanting 'mantras'. She has also disclosed in her petition that in one T.V. Serial at Tollygunge, she met him and intimacy was developed between them which culminated to their marriage. After two years, the opposite party started neglecting her and as a result their relationship became strained. The opposite party deserted her without any shy me and reason and not only that he had given out threats to the complainant for kidnapping her minor child. Thereafter the opposite party had instituted a proceeding against her for nullity of marriage before the learned Additional District Judge 7th Fast Track Court, Alipore. Now, the petitioner has come know that the opposite party has another wife and a child also. In the said case the present opposite party contended that this petitioner has married thrice. However, in the divorce suit filed by the private opposite party, the petitioner prayed for alumni pendente lite which awaits final adjudication. She has also prayed for enhancement of the quantum of alumni pendente lite. She also moved an application for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. but that has been stayed due to the civil suit pending between them. So there are spiralling of cases and counter cases between the parties. On the basis of her allegation, charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 498A I.P.C. although her allegation was under Sections 498A/376/420 of I.P.C. Being aggrieved at it she has filed an application for further investigation before the learned Judicial Magistrate, who in turn, rejected the said plea holding inter alia, that Section 173(8) of the Code is an enabling provision under which even after completion of the investigation and submission of report in final form, if any new material having an intensive value either to prove or disprove the charge is revealed, investigating agency would be entitled to bring the attention of the court to such new material by way of filing a supplementary report in final form. As such it is absolutely within the domain of the investigating agency to make further investigation and for causing further investigation, the law as it stands now no permission is necessary for the investigating agency as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In a reported decision to the effect that it is desirable to appraise the court of such further investigation and ultimately held it is further nowhere spelt out in the Cr.P.C. that the de facto complainant may file application requesting direction from the court for further investigation or re-investigation. The Court can exercise its jurisdiction only within the realm of the Code. Indisputably, the investigating agency as per sub-section (8) of section 173, Cr.P.C. can request the Court to grant permission to investigate into the matter further. It does not provide the right to the de facto complainant to file such application.
(3.) In view of the above discussion and consideration, the petition filed by the de facto complainant for further investigation was rejected on contest, by the learned court below.;