The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dismissed the writ petition, upholding the lower court’s order refusing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC in a case arising from marital discord.
The case arose from a marital dispute in which the petitioner alleged criminal trespass and damage to property by her husband. Her written complaint dated 12.04.2022 led to registration of FIR dated 14.04.2022, filing of charge-sheet dated 19.05.2022, and registration of RCC. After framing of charges on 13.06.2022 and commencement of trial, petitioner filed application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 06.02.2024.
This application was rejected by trial court, primarily for the reason that she remained silent for an extended period from FIR registration through trial commencement before seeking further investigation. The petitioner instituted the present writ petition to challenge the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur’s order dated 19.10.2024.
The petitioner argued that the FIR’s contents varied from her written complaint, witness statements were not properly taken, and police failed to file her original complaint with the charge-sheet. She contended that these issues warranted further investigation. The respondents/State countered that the FIR accurately reflected the complaint, witness statements supported the petitioner’s version, and no procedural violations occurred.
The Bench comprising Justice M.M. Nerlikar reviewed the documents and found no substantial variation or flaw in investigation, no new evidence, nor exceptional circumstances justifying further investigation at this late stage. The Court referenced settled law that further investigation after charge-sheet/trial requires compelling grounds, not mere dissatisfaction or desire to fill “lacuna.”
In result, the High Court found no error in the lower court’s refusal to order further investigation. The petition was dismissed, with the rule discharged. The judgment affirmed that the petitioner brought no new evidence or demonstrated significant flaw in the original investigation. The court cautioned that powers under Articles 226/227 for further investigation must be used sparingly and only in rare cases.
Appearances:
Mr. P.V. Dandwate, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Hulke, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State.
