CRM No. M-10095 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-10095 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.8.2011 Parminder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). The petitioner has preferred present writ petition praying for a direction to Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana to entertain his application for further investigation and to present supplementary challan in FIR No.70 dated 2nd June, 2010, under Sections 323, 406, 420, 498-A, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR was registered on the complaint of the petitioner against her husband and in- laws on the allegation of subjecting her to cruelty, criminal breach of trust and other related offences. After investigation, challan was presented before the competent court but the petitioner found infirmities with the challan. Thus, application was moved before the court seeking further investigation and presentation of supplementary challan. The application was, however, not entertained by the court. Thus, a CRM No. M-10095 of 2011 2 direction needs to be issued in this case to the Magistrate to entertain the application for further investigation and to present a supplementary challan. Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the plea. He submits that a thorough investigation was conducted in the matter and thereafter challan was produced before the competent court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that petitioner submitted a complaint before the police alleging that she was subjected to cruelty in her matrimonial home by the accused. According to her, she was married to Jatinder Singh on 7th December, 2006 at Milan Resorts, Dehlon, Distt. Ludhiana. Her father spent a huge amount at the time of marriage and gave various gifts in the shape of car, gold, ornaments, clothes, furniture etc. The marriage was attended by about 300 persons and expense was incurred in a hospitality. However, 20 days after the marriage, her husband left for Spain. The petitioner was subjected to cruelty, given beatings on trivial matters thereafter. More demands were made from her for bringing money from her family. Her husband returned from Spain in January, 2008, who also treated her badly. Even her signatures were obtained on certain blank papers. Her in-laws hatched a conspiracy to get Jatinder Singh (husband) married for second time. Fed up, the petitioner lodged the instant FIR. A case was registered under Sections 323, 406, 420, 498-A, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 read with Section 34 CRM No. M-10095 of 2011 3 IPC. Investigation ensued. Pursuant to same, challan was presented before the Magistrate against Malkiat Singh (father-in-law), Gurcharan Kaur (mother-in-law), Jaswinder Singh (Jeth) and Sukhwinder Kaur (Jethani). The petitioner, however, found discrepancies in the investigation and challan submitted pursuant thereto. An application was, thus, moved before the court for further investigation pointing out defects in investigation and infirmities in the challan. According to stand taken before this court, said application was not entertained by the court and thus, a prayer has been made for direction to the court to entertain the application. On a query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner about the proof, if any, of filing of the application in court, no clear answer is forthcoming. On a further query whether complainant can invoke provisions of Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. in a case where investigation has already resulted in presentation of challan against the accused, no clear answer has been given. It is evident that pursuant to the complaint lodged by the complainant, the investigating agency completed the investigation and submitted challan against four accused. The plea of the petitioner is that he found certain infirmities in the challan and thus further investigation is required, is without any merit. Needless to observe that prosecution is yet to lead its evidence. The entire issue can be examined by the trial court only after evidence is led before it during the course of trial. Admittedly, investigation against two accused, namely Jatinder Singh (husband) and Gurwinder Singh (brother-in-law) is still pending. According to affidavit filed before this CRM No. M-10095 of 2011 4 court by Narinder Pal Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ludhiana, supplementary challan shall be filed in the court after investigation qua remaining two accused is completed. It is, thus, inexplicable how the present petition, seeking a direction to the court below for entertaining application under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., is maintainable. There is nothing to show that any such application was moved before the court below. No clear answer has been given to the query of the court whether provisions of Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C. can be invoked by the complainant in a situation where the accused have already been found guilty by the investigating agency and challan has been presented before the court. In my considered view, the present petition is not only misconceived but totally frivolous. The same is, thus, dismissed with Rs.20,000/- as cost to be remitted to the Punjab Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 26.8.2011 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No