CRR No. 975 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRR No. 975 of 2010 Date of decision: 16.01.2012 Tavinder Kaur ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. Mukund Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. J S Rattu, DAG, Haryana for the respondent State Mr. D S Nalwa, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 and 3 -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) This revision petition has been filed, challenging the order dated 11.01.2010 vide which direction has been issued to the investigating agency to further investigate the matter in view of the guideline laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jacob Mathew Vs. State of Punjab (2005) 6 SCC 1 and Martin F.D'Souza' Vs. Mohd. Ishfaq (2009) 3 SCC 1. The matter was referred to the Division Bench vide order dated 29.07.2011 to decide the question as to whether the trial Court can suo CRR No. 975 of 2010 2 motto order further investigation. The said queasion was decided by the Division Bench vide order dated 07.12.2011, as under:- (1) When on completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 of the Code is filed, the Court can accept such report and either drop the proceedings or take cognizance of the proceedings on the basis of such report; (2) If no offence is said to have been committed in the final report and the Magistrate feels that there are sufficient grounds to proceed further, he can issue process and take cognizance in terms of Section 190 of the Code; (3) The Magistrate is also competent to order further investigation without accepting the report though he has no power to direct the police to file a final report in a particular form or report making some persons guilty. Reference may be made to Bhagwant Singh , Hemant Dhasmana , S. Papaiah , Popular Muthiah and Fakhruddin Ahmad’s cases (supra); (4) That before accepting the closure report, the Magistrate is bound to provide an opportunity of being heard to the informant, so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process. Reference may be made to Bhagwant Singh’s case (supra); (5) That power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code can be exercised by the Magistrate even if cognizance of the offence has been CRR No. 975 of 2010 3 taken. Reference may be made to Ram Lal Narang , A.C. Saldanna and Hemant Dhasmana’s cases (supra); (6) That the Magistrate can order further investigation, when an opportunity is given to the informant and when the informant files either a protest petition or objections to the report. The Magistrate, empowered to do so under Section 190 of the Code, can also suo motu exercise such powers, as observed by the Full Bench of this Court in Mehar Singh’s cases (supra); and (7) The police has a right to investigate further under Section 173 (8) of the Code even in cases where cognizance of the offence has already been taken, but the propriety demands that police should inform the Magistrate, who has taken cognizance” In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge 16.01.2012 mohan