1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No. 3396 OF 2009 Sau. Nidhi @ Smita Yogesh Patwardhan v. The State of Mah. & ors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's and Registrar's orders orders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R.R. Vyas Advocate for the Application. ..... CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 1 st FEBRUARY,_2010. This revision is directed against the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by J.M.F.C., Nagpur, not directing further investigation as claimed by the applicant/complainant. Learned counsel vehemently argued that as per provisions of Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, police was obliged to inform the complainant about filing of the charge-sheet and consequently the Magistrate ought to have ordered further investigation in the case. At the outset, I find that the Magistrate has considered the entire matter and the grievance made by the applicant/complainant before him and the contention as regards non-compliance of Section 173(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure has become 2 redundant. That apart, in my opinion, the language of Section 173(2) does not mean that at the time of filing the charge-sheet the applicant/complainant should be informed like the accused summons at the time of filing charge-sheet. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the applicant relied on the decision in Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna – (2009) 3 SCC (Cri.) 611. In view of the fact that the applicant/complainant had full opportunity to appear before the Magistrate and pray for order for additional investigation, this judgment has no application. Reading of the supplementary statement of the complainant/applicant shows that the same is contradictory, as observed by the learned Magistrate. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this revision and the same stands dismissed. JUDGE /TA/ 3