Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Writ No.686 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Umanath Sharma, S/O Sheonandan Sharma, R/O Mohallah-Bhagwan Bazar, P.O.-Chapra, P.S.-Bhagwan Bazar, Distt.-Saran 2. Abishek Shaurav, S/O Sri Umanath Sharma, R/O Mohallah-Bhagwan Bazar, P.O.-Chapra, P.S.-Bhagwan Bazar, Distt.-Saran 3. Shobhit Kumar Shaurav, S/O Sri Umanath Sharma, R/O Mohallah- Bhagwan Bazar, P.O.-Chapra, P.S.-Bhagwan Bazar, Distt.-Saran. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Director General of Police, Government Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. The Director General of Police Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Inspector General of Police, Muzaffarpur Range, At & P.O. & P.S.- Muzaffarpur, Distt.-Muzaffarur, Bihar 4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran Area, At & P.O.- & P.S.- Chapra, Distt.-Saran, Bihar 5. The Superintendent of Police, Saran At & P.O. & P.S.-Chapra, Distt.- Saran, Bihar 6. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Chapra, At & P.O. & P.S.-Chapra, Distt.-Saran, Bihar 7. The Officer-In-Charge, Bhagwan Bazar, P.S., At & P.O. & P.S.-Bhagwan Bazar, Distt.-Saran, Bihar 8. Rashmi Kumari, W/O Sri Shobhit Kumar Shaurav, D/O Sri Ram Singar Sharma, R/O Mohalla-East Gola Road, P.S.-Danapur, Distt.-Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Advocate. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent no.8: Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate Mr. Raghwanand, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, A.C. to S.C.-XI. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER Patna High Court CR. WJC No.686 of 2011 (4) dt.12-09-2012 2 / 6 2 4 12-09-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 8. The petitioners have been made accused in Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case No. 262 of 2009 dated 1.10.2009 instituted under [STATUTE] and Section 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police investigated the case and on conclusion of investigation submitted its report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by which, the petitioners were not sent up for trial. In other words, the police found lack of evidence and exonerated the petitioners in its report submitted to the court. The learned C.J.M., Chapra on receipt of the final report, issued notice to the informant. The matter was pending for hearing on the point of cognizance. In the meantime, an application was filed by the Officer-In-Charge of Bhagwan Bazar Police Station in the court of learned C.J.M., Saran, Chapra, seeking permission for further investigation in the matter on the basis of an order passed by the D.I.G. concerned. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra by his order dated 16.4.2011 allowed the prayer made by the police and, thus, the police took up further Patna High Court CR. WJC No.686 of 2011 (4) dt.12-09-2012 3 / 6 3 investigation of the case in terms of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid order has filed the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a matter of fact there was no fresh material before the police after submission of the charge sheet, on the basis of which, it could have filed an application under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission for further investigation of the case. According to him, the D.I.G. has simply re-apprised the material already available on record and passed an order for further investigation of the case, which is not proper. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the State and respondent no. 8 submit that there is no illegality in the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate granting permission to investigate the case further on the application made by the police. They submit that several facts which were quite relevant and required proper investigation were not investigated by the investigating officer prior to the submission of the charge sheet. The D.I.G. concerned looked into the matter and on an in depth enquiry came to a finding that there was necessity to investigate the case further and, as such, he directed the investigating officer for the same. Accordingly, the Officer-In-Charge of the police station made an application in the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.686 of 2011 (4) dt.12-09-2012 4 / 6 4 court pursuant to which, the court being satisfied passed the aforesaid order dated 16.4.2011. Having heard the parties, I am of the view that there is no fetter on the power of the police to investigate further if something new comes to its knowledge after the report is submitted. Similarly, if some material fact is over-looked by the investigating officer and a report is submitted, the Supervising authorities of the police are authorized to re-appreciate the material in such cases. In case of Ram Lal Narang & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Admn.) since reported in A.I.R. 1997 SC 1791. The Apex Court while examining the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has held as follows:- “…………..The criticism that a further investigation by the police would trench upon the proceedings before the Court is really not of very great substance, since whatever the police may do, the final discretion in regard to further action is with the Magistrate. That the final word is with the Magistrate is sufficient safeguard against any excessive use or abuse of the power of the police to make further investigation. We should not, however, be understood to say that the police should ignore the pendency of a proceeding before a Court and investigate every fresh fact that comes to Patna High Court CR. WJC No.686 of 2011 (4) dt.12-09-2012 5 / 6 5 light as if no cognizance had been t

Applicable IPC Section: 498A

Statute Text:
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Punishment for subjecting a married woman to Cruelty. Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.