THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1172 of 2011 ORDER: The point that arises for determination in this revision is whether or not the court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool (trial Court), is correct in rejecting the application of the de facto complainant in a police case for a direction to the concerned police to further investigate the said case. 2. The point arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner Smt Uthanuru Kumudavathi is the de facto complainant in the criminal case i.e. C.C.No.484 of 2009 on the file of the trial Court. The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kodumur Police Station filed charge sheet in the above case against 63 accused i.e. A-1 to A-63 alleging against them offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 427 and 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and also Section 7(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act without specifying of which year’s Act it is but it is not necessary to go into the same for the purpose of this revision. The said charge sheet has been registered as the aforesaid C.C.No.484 of 2009 by the trial court on its file and it corresponds to Crime No.120 of 2007 of Kodumur Police Station. 3. After filing of the charge sheet and the registration of the aforesaid case, the de facto complainant filed a petition i.e. Crl.M.P.No.7236 of 2010 in the trial Court seeking a direction from it to the concerned police for further investigation of the said case. Her plea or grievance is that she gave the report to the concerned police against one Golla Venkatesh (A1) and Golla Venkataiah (A2) and 148 others alleging that all of them armed with deadly weapons committed rioting and attacked her and her husband in order to kill them and that the said incident occurred on the morning of 06.09.2007. Her further plea is that though the police have registered the case they did not properly investigate the matter because of the influence of political leaders and that they charge sheeted only 63 accused for minor offences by deleting the charge under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and that therefore the charge sheet filed by the said police is not proper and requested the trial court to direct the Kodumur police or the concerned police officer to further investigate the case. Her plea is that the remaining accused should also be charge sheeted for the offences mentioned in the charge sheet and all accused should also be charge sheeted for the offence under Section 307 IPC. This petition purports to have been filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 4. Before filing the above petition the de facto complainant filed Writ Petition No.10030 of 2010 in this court for a direction from this court to the concerned police for the above relief of further investigation on the very same pleas. This court disposed of that writ petition on 28.04.2010 directing the de facto complainant to approach the trial court under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. In giving the said direction this court relied upon Kishan Lal v. Dharmendra Bafna[1] a decision of the Supreme Court. Pursuant to that direction the petitioner filed the aforesaid Crl.M.P.No.7236 of 2010 for the said relief and that was dismissed by the trial court by its impugned order dated 25.03.2011 which is now challenged in this revision. 5. It would now be better to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order of the trial court which contains the reasons and it reads as follows. “6. It is an admitted fact that only on the application made by the investigating authorities, Magistrate may permit further investigation. Further, the petitioner simply stated that the investigation carried out by the Kodumur Police Station from the date of FIR till filing of the charge sheet is not proper. The petitioner also fails to state how the investigation is improper in her petition. Moreover, the cognizance of offence was taken and charges were framed against the accused and the case is posted for trial and at this belated stage, the petitioner is not entitled to seek any relief. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case between Reeta Nag Vs. State of West Bengal and others reported in 2010 Crl.L.J. 2245 held that, “Once a charge sheet is filed under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. and either charge is framed or the accused are discharged, the Magistrate may, on the basis of a protest petition take cognizance of the offence complained of or on the application made by the investigating authorities permit further investigation under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate cannot suo-motu direct a further investigation under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. or direct re- investigation into a case on account of the bar of section 167(2) of the Code”. 8. In view of the above discussion and established rule position, I hold no merits in the petition for further investigation under section 173(8) Cr.P.C. Hence, the petition is dismissed.” 6. Assailing the order of the trial Court the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the trial court was not correct in dismissing the application of the de facto complainant for further investigation and going by the principle laid down in Kishan Lal’s case referred to supra it ought to have allowed the application. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order and pointed out that the same in the circumstances of this case does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity as the trial court has given all the reasons which can be said to be valid. He also argued that in a police case only police can apply for or go for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C and not a de facto complainant. 7. So far as the maintainability of Crl.M.P.No.7236 of 2010 is concerned the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Kishan Lal’s case referred to supra suggests that even a de facto complainant can make such an application. This apart in the aforesaid W.P.No.10030 of 2010 filed by the petitioner herein this Court relying upon the Kishan Lal’s case observed that the petitioner is entitled to make such an application for further investigation before the trial Court. This order has become final and it was pursuant to this order the de facto complainant filed present Crl.M.P.No.7236 of 2010. Thus the question of the maintainability of Crl.M.P.No.7236 of 2010 need not be gone into in this petition and as will be presently seen it is also, in the circumstances of this case, not necessary to go into the same. 8. Now coming to the point, the relevant portion of the impugned order by which the trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner has already been extracted supra. It shows that the trial Court has given mainly two reasons for dismissing Crl.M.P.No.7236 of 2010. The first reason given by it is that the de facto complainant merely stated that the investigation done by the Kodumuru police is not proper and she failed to state how the investigation is improper. The impugned order shows that the trial court in otherwords found that the de facto complainant except pleading that investigation is improper did not make out a case for ordering further investigation by showing what were the defects in the earlier investigation done by the police and what are the aspects which needed to be looked into in further investigation and therefore she failed to make out a case for further investigation. The second reason given by it is that charges have already been framed in the case and therefore it cannot suo-moto direct further investigation and in concluding so it relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court given in Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal[2]. In the course of arguments it was pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that Reeta Nag’s case has been correctly relied upon by the trial Court and that there may be some conflict also between the above two decisions. It is however not necessary to go into this aspect and as will be presently seen the petitioner should fail in this case for the following reasons. 9. It may be noted that this court in the order passed in W.P.No.10030 of 2010 observed that the petitioner is entitled to make appropriate application before the jurisdictional Magistrate by bringing to his notice the various aspects pertaining to the alleged defective investigation and charge sheet and that upon hearing the petitioner the jurisdictional Magistrate, if satisfied, that further investigation is necessary he shall pass an appropriate order. Thus the order of this court in the above writ petition reads that the petitioner should show what are the defects in the previous investigation and on what aspects further investigation is needed before the trial court. In giving its first reason which is already mentioned supra trial court clearly found that the petitioner has failed to show the defects in previous investigation and what are the aspects which needed further investigation. Thus the petitioner failed to comply with the order of this court in the above writ petition. 10. A copy of the petition i.e. Crl.M.P.No.7236 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner’s counsel himself in the material papers. A perusal of that petition would show that the petitioner narrated about the complaint given by him, the order passed by this court in W.P.No.10030 of 2010 and then proceeded to state that the police yielded to the pressure from the political groups in the concerned village and deleted many of the accused and also the offence under Section 307 IPC. Except the said averment, the petition does not show as to what are the defects in the previous investigation and what are the aspects which needed to be investigated in further investigation and further what are the sources from which evidence can be obtained against accused who were not charge sheeted and how the police failed to look into those sources. It should be noted that when the de facto complainant in a police case approaches a Magistrate for ordering further investigation it is the bounden duty of the de facto complainant to point out the above aspects for a Magistrate to pass an order directing further investigation and it will not be sufficient to merely plead that the earlier investigation was improper and police succumbed to pressure from political groups. In other words as observed by the trial court, the de facto complainant did not take to its notice the various defects in the earlier investigation and the aspects which needed to be gone into in further investigation. 11. When the above first reason given by the trial court and the averments in the petition were taken to the notice of the learned counsel for the petitioner, he requested an opportunity for the petitioner/de facto complainant to file a fresh application giving out the defects in the earlier investigation and the aspects which need further investigation. It may be noted that if the matter is again remanded there will not be any end to this process and the de facto complainant failed to avail the opportunity given by this court in W.P.No.10030 of 2010. It would also result in unnecessary harassment to the accused who are already charge sheeted as their trial gets prolonged. A question may now arise as to what is the remedy of the de facto complainant in the circumstances of this case. 12. In Kishan Lal’s case referred to supra, the Supreme Court after confirming the Madras High Court order which has set aside the order of the learned Magistrate therein directing further investigation on the application of a de facto complainant, held that it was always open for the de facto complainant or the prosecution to make out a case under Section 319 Cr.P.C to proceed against the accused who were deleted from the case by the police. Similarly In Reeta Nag’s case referred to supra and relied upon by the trial court it has been held that the remedy under Section 319 Cr.P.C could be invoked in respect of those accused who were deleted from the case by the police. The impugned order of the trial court would show that charges have been framed against all the accused who have been charge sheeted and the case is ready for further progress and the case is of the year 2009. 13. Thus in the circumstances of this case and the legal position stated supra and for the aforesaid reasons the impugned order of the trial court is sustained on the first reason given by it and it shall proceed to dispose of the case in accordance with law. It is also made clear that it shall be open for the de facto complainant and the prosecution to show further progress in the case. It is further made clear that if the evidence that is let in brings to light the complicity of other accused who have been deleted from the case and also the commission of the offence under Section 307 IPC either against the accused who have been charge sheeted or all accused, in addition to other offences mentioned in the charge sheet, it shall be open for the trial court to proceed in accordance with law against them and also the above offence and pass appropriate orders. 14. This revision is accordingly disposed of. ______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J 12th July 2011 CVRK [1] (2009) 7 SCC 685 [2] 2010 Crl.L.J 2245