CRM-M-29868 of 2009 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CRM-M-29868 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: 05.11.2009 **** Smt. Shrestha Devi . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Haryana . . . . Respondent **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN **** Present: Mr.K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL) This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.) for setting aside order dated 5.7.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narwana and order dated 6.6.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind, dismissing an application filed by the complainant/petitioner (Annexure P-3) under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner had lodged FIR No.101 dated 28.8.2005, under Sections 380, 427, 201 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Garhi. After completing the investigation challan was presented under Section 173 Cr.P.C. When the case was pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narwana for 4.9.2007, the petitioner filed an application under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. for directing the Investigating Officer/Prosecution to further investigate as the stolen articles were not received. The said application (Annexure P-3) was dismissed by learned Judicial CRM-M-29868 of 2009 - 2 - Magistrate Ist Class, Narwana vide his order dated 5.7.2008 (Annexure P-4) and a revision filed under Section 397 Cr.P.C., against order dated 5.7.2008, was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jind vide his order dated 6.6.2009 (Annexure P-5). Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, argued that the investigation of the case was not carried out properly as a result of which recovery of the stolen articles has not been effected as it is clearly stated in the report of DSP, Narwana (Annexure P-2). It is further alleged that there are various lacunas in the investigation, therefore, further investigation is required. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record. The FIR was registered on 28.8.2005 thereafter, it was investigated by not less than six Investigating officers, namely, ASI Sadhu Ram, ASI Suraj Bhan, ASI Balbir Singh, ASI Ram Chander, ASI Krishan Kumar and ASI Pratap Singh at different times. It was further investigated by the DSP, Narwana and then SP Jind. It is also observed by learned Courts below that the petitioner had filed similar application on 27.2.2007, which was dismissed on 28.2.2007. The said application was filed after the filing of challan against the accused Surinder Pal Singh and Anjali but order dated 28.2.2007 was neither challenged by way of revision or appeal. Hence, the present application was not found to be maintainable. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I found that the matter, which has already been decided on 28.2.2007, cannot be re-agitated by filing a fresh application. CRM-M-29868 of 2009 - 3 - Learned counsel for the petitioner has neither argued nor said a word about the correctness of the finding/observation of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narwana wherein it has been observed that similar application was earlier dismissed, which was not challenged by the petitioner and therefore, the present application is not maintainable in law. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) NOVEMBER 05, 2009 JUDGE vivek