Point of Law:Quash of criminal proceedings - while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not. But ends of justice would be served by entertaining petitions under Section 482 at an interlocutory stage to avoid miscarriage of justice.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner Smt.Puttamma arraigned as defacto complainant in C.C.No.23897 of 2015, which is pending before the 44th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for trial against the accused who were arraigned as Respondent Nos.2 to 10 in this petition. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.08.2016 in C.C.No.23897/2015 and seeking to set aside the order and thereby to allow the application filed under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel, Shri.M.S.Rajendra Prasad appearing for the petitioner/complainant and so also, Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP appearing for Respondent No.1/State and Shri.K.A.Chandrashekara, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 10/accused. Perused the materials.

3. It is transpired in the complaint filed by the defacto complainant, Smt.Puttamma and based upon her complaint, case in Cr.No.98 of 2015 came to be registered by J.P.Nagar Police Station for the offences, which reflected in the FIR said to have been recorded by the police.

4. Subsequent to registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer has investigated the case and laid the chargesheet against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction to deal with the case against the accused. The petitioner in her complaint has stated against Respondent Nos.2 to 10 herein that her father had given a house for living after death of her husband. After death of his first wife, her father had married for the second time. Later on, her father’s brother Puttegowda and her step mother had joined hands to harass her in all aspects. The petitioner had gone along with her husband to the village for harvesting ragi crop. Her two children had been left at her brother in law’s place at Bilekahalli. While the petitioner returned to her house on Sunday by 6.45 a.m., at that time, she found a red Maruthi 800 Car bearing registration No.KA03P3344 and a Tempo carrying all the household articles. At that time, Respondent No.2 slapped the petitioner on her cheek shouting at her and abused her in filthy language and the petitioner had been necked out from the house and Respondent No.2 went away in the car. One Vijaya Narasimhamurthy proceeded in a Hero Honda vehicle bearing registration No.KA05JK8828 chasing one Lokesha. The details of the articles had been mentioned in the annexure page of the complaint.

5. On the basis of the said complaint, Respondent No.1 Police had registered a case against Respondent Nos.2 to 10 in Crime No.98 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 403, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, the Respondent No.1 Police laid the chargesheet against the accused but during the pendency of the criminal proceedings against the accused, the petitioner who is a defacto complainant had filed an application under Section 173(8) of CR.P.C. for reinvestigation into the case on the ground that the investigation made by the Respondent No.1 Police is incorrect.

6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of VinubhaiHaribhaiMalaviyaandothersVs.StateofGujaratandanotherwhereby it has held that, until trial commence, Magistrate has power to direct further investigation even after cognizance is taken. Whereas, Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. confers powers upon the officer incharge of the police station to further investigate the matter and submit the evidence, oral or documentary, after forwarding the report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. Further, the aforesaid section shall be at the instance of the investigating officer/police officer incharge and once the order of discharge of accused is passed, thereafter the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to suo motu direct the investigating officer for further investigation.

7. However, in the instant case, Respondent Nos.2 to 10 who arraigned as accused in C.C.No.23897 of 2015 arose in Cr.No.98 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 403, 506 r/w 34