Criminal Revision No. 478 of 2016. Case: Nandita Sethi Vs State of Orissa and Ors.. High Court of Orissa (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Revision No. 478 of 2016 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Satyabrata Pradhan and M.R. Padhi, Advs. and For Respondents: Deepak Kumar, Addl. Standing Counsel |
| Judges | S.K. Sahoo, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 167(2), 172(3)(i), 173, 173(2), 173(3), 173(6), 173(8), 438, 482; Constitution of India - Article 226; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Section 4; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 294, 313, 34, 468, 471, 498A, 506 |
| Judgement Date | January 19, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Orissa (India) |
Judgment:
S.K. Sahoo, J.
1. An important and interesting question that arises for decision in this case is as follows:-
Whether the Magistrate after taking cognizance of offences on the basis of charge sheet submitted by police can direct further investigation of the case at the instance of a de facto complainant?
The petitioner Smt. Nandita Sethi @ Behera who is the wife of opposite party No. 2 Sadananda Behera is an accused in Bhadrak Rural P.S. Case No. 367 of 2013 in which charge sheet was submitted against her for commission of offences punishable under sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code which corresponds to G.R. Case No. 1917 of 2013 pending in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak.
The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 04.05.2016 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak in allowing the petition filed by the opposite party No. 2 Sadananda Behera for further investigation of the case under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
2. On 25.09.2013 on the First Information Report submitted by one Brajakishore Das, ASI of Police, Bhadrak Rural Police Station before the Inspector in Charge, Bhadrak Rural Police Station, the case was instituted. It is stated in the F.I.R. that while inquiring into the petition filed by the opposite party No. 2 as per the order of the Inspector in Charge, the informant visited Anchalika Sahajoga Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Palli, Radhakanta Behera +3 Degree College, Arnapal and Bental G.P. Office. During inquiry, it was ascertained that the petitioner was admitted to Radhakanta Behera +3 Degree College, Arnapal on 02.07.2007 as per the admission register of the College and she passed +3 degree examination in the year 2010 and left the College on 07.07.2010. During verification of the admission register of Anchalika Sahajoga Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya, Palli, it was learnt that the petitioner was admitted in +3 degree class (Sastri) in the college on 20.08.2007 and during the final examination in the year 2010, the petitioner was detected in adopting malpractice for which she was not issued with College leaving certificate. It was ascertained during inquiry that the petitioner served as Grama Rozgar Sevak in Bental G.P. Office on production of +3 pass certificate from Radhakanta Behera +3 Degree College, Arnapal which has been procured by her by forged means. The petitioner was subsequently terminated from the post of Gram Rozgar Sevak.
On such First Information Report, Bhadrak Rural P.S. Case No. 367 of 2013 was registered on 25.09.2013 under sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and the Inspector in Charge, Bhadrak Rural Police Station directed Sri G.Ch. Nayak, A.S.I. of Police of Gujidarada Outpost to investigate the case. Subsequently the investigation was taken over by Chitta Ranjan Das, A.S.I. of Police, Gujidarada Outpost who examined the witnesses and it was found during investigation that in the year 2007, the petitioner got admission in Radhakanta Behera +3 Degree College, Arnapal producing +2 pass certificate from Maa Basanti Durga Anchalik Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya, Tentulidihi, Chandbali. The petitioner also got admission in the year 2007 in Anchalik Sahajog Sanskrit Mahavidhyalaya, Palli but during final examination, she was detected adopting malpractice. It was found out during investigation that the petitioner got admission in Radhakanta Behera +3 Degree College arranging pass certificate for the purpose of cheating. The petitioner was also selected as Gram Rozgar Sevak of Bental Gram Panchayat, Bhadrak but after verification, she was terminated from the post by the DRDA, Bhadrak. All the material documents were seized and as clinching evidence against the petitioner for commission of offences under sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was found, charge sheet dated 07.06.2014 was submitted and accordingly, cognizance of offences under sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code was taken on 17.06.2014.
The petitioner approached this Court under section 438 Cr.P.C. in BLAPL No. 26329 of 2013 and she was directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest vide order dated 19.02.2014. In pursuance of such order, the petitioner furnished bail bonds before the Investigating Officer and was released on bail on 19.05.2014.
3. The opposite party No. 2 on whose petition the inquiry was conducted initially by Brajakishore Das, A.S.I. of Police, Bhadrak Rural Police Station filed a petition under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. before the learned S.D.J.M., Bhadrak on 20.10.2014 through his advocate for further investigation of the case under section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. on the ground that investigation has been conducted in a perfunctory manner. It is stated that the petitioner was prosecuting +2 Science course in BNMA College, Palia Bindha, Bhadrak and +2 Arts Upa Sastri in Sanskrit Maa Basanti Durga Anchalika Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Tentulidihi, Chandbali, Bhadrak. It was indicated in the petition that the statement of the opposite party No. 2 has not been recorded and in order to ascertain the date of admission of the petitioner in the course, certificate furnished at the time of admission, date of publication of examination result, result of examination and date of leaving of the petitioner from the College are required to be investigated.
The petitioner entered appearance in the case on 21.04.2015 through her advocates.
The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed objection to the petition filed by the opposite party No. 2 and contended that the opposite party No. 2 has no locus standi to file such petition and when charge sheet has already submitted and cognizance of offences has been taken, such petition should not be entertained.
The learned Magistrate while considering such petition for further investigation held vide impugned order dated 04.05.2016 that further investigation on the points raised by the opposite party No. 2 is necessary and accordingly directed the Inspector in Charge of Bhadrak Rural Police Station to conduct further investigation, which is impugned in this revision petition.
4. On receipt of the direction from the learned Magistrate, further investigation of the case was entrusted to A.S.I. of Police namely C.R. Das who examined the opposite party No. 2 who stated about the admission of the petitioner in BNMA College, Palia Bindha, Bhadrak where she appeared in +2 Science examination and failed after which College Leaving Certificate was issued on 24.07.2001 and the petitioner took admission in Maa Basanti Durga Anchalika Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Tentulidihi, Chandbali, Bhadrak from 05.08.2005 to May 2007. The Investigating Officer seized documents from both the institutions. It was found that the petitioner had married the opposite party No. 2 but due to difference of opinion, the opposite party No. 2 and his family members drove her out from their house and in that connection Bhadrak Rural P.S. Case No. 239 dated 05.07.2012 was registered under sections 498-A, 294, 506, 313 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the opposite party No. 2 was charge sheeted for such offences.
5. Mr. Satyabrata Pradhan, learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order dated 04.05.2016 contended that at the instance of a de facto complainant like opposite party No. 2, further investigation cannot be ordered by the Magistrate after submission of charge sheet and taking cognizance of offences. It was highlighted that further investigation of the case was not necessary and lacuna in the prosecution case cannot be allowed to be filled up by way of further investigation. It is further contended that the opposite party No. 2 is not an...
To continue reading
Request your trial