Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THE matter has been placed before this Bench consequent to a reference made by the learned Single Judge noticing conflict in the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randhir Singh Rana Vs. The State being the Delhi Administration : AIR 1997 SC 639 and Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal and others : (2009)9 SCC 129, whereby in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') it was held that the trial Court has no power to order further investigations suo moto and in Hemant Dhasmana Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another : (2001) 7 SCC 536 and Union Public Service Commission Vs. S. Papaiah and others : (1997) 7 SCC 614, wherein, it has been held that the Magistrate in exercise of powers under Section 173(8) of the Code could direct further investigations.
(2.) IN Criminal Revision No.975 of 2010, report under Section 173(2) was filed in respect of death of daughter -in -law Amarjit Kaur of the Petitioner for an offence under Sections 304, 314, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 22, 23 & 25 of the Pre -Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Regulation and Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1994 (for short 'the PNDT Act'). On the basis of such report, the learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges against respondent Nos.2 & 3 for an offence under Sections 304, 314, 201 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 23 of the PNDT Act vide order dated 15.09.2004. The accused filed a petition for quashing of the charges framed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code before this Court. In Criminal Revision No.2008 of 2004, the framing of charges was quashed by this Court in view of the judgment in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab : (2005) 6 SCC 1 and Martin F. D'souza Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq : (2009) 3 SCC 1 and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court to hear the parties and decide afresh taking into consideration the guidelines spelt out in the aforesaid judgments. After the aforesaid order was passed, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in its order dated 11.01.2010 considering the guidelines laid down in the aforesaid judgments, found that no opinion of any specialist or any medical board was taken by the investigating agency during investigation and neither the investigating agency nor the court is an expert on the subject and it would be very hard to determine as to whether the accused would be liable for the offences allegedly to have been committed by them or not. Therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 173(8) of the Code, the learned trial Court directed the investigating agency to further investigate the matter keeping in view the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew and Martin F. D'zouza's cases (supra).
(3.) IN Criminal Misc. No.M -8903 of 2011, an application filed by the petitioner for further investigations and/or investigations by an independent agency was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 25.01.2011. The petitioner herein is mother of the deceased Sonia who was married to Jaipal son of Gurdev Singh. The allegation is that the daughter of the complainant was done to death on account of inability of the complainant to satisfy the demands of dowry. Though an FIR No.302 dated 15.09.2009 was lodged, but since the investigations were not being conducted properly, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code by filing Criminal Misc. No.M -2058 of 2010, which was disposed of on 11.02.2010. An affidavit was filed by the Inspector General of Police that the husband and father -in -law of the deceased have been arrested as incriminating material have been found only against the said two persons. The petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of by observing that the complainant would have a right under the Code of Criminal procedure against the cancellation report or non -inclusion of other persons as accused. The petitioner submitted a protest petition/complaint before the learned trial Court praying for further investigations and/or for additional and fresh challan. The learned trial Court returned a finding that the complainant and her private counsel have no locus standi to prosecute and they cannot ask for further investigations as per the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code. It was further observed that the Court was competent to summon any person as an accused during the trial on the application of the Public Prosecutor or otherwise if material comes against any person, who has not been made an accused by the investigating agency. In view of the said fact, the application was dismissed.;