IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasized the rights of the informant, the duty of the police to inform the informant about the result of the investigation, and the need for the informant to be heard before the court takes cognizance of the offense as per the charge sheet.

JUDGMENT :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1. An order of the Sessions Judge, Purulia, dated August 8, 2016, in Sessions Case No. 32/2016, is under challenge in this revision. The order inter alia has rejected petitioner’s prayer for further investigation.

2. Severe burn injuries and consequent hospitalization of his sister prompted the present petitioner, to lodge a FIR, being Balarampur P.S Case No. 60/2015 dated 30.09.2015, under Sections 498A/326/307/34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequent death of her, had led Section 302 of the IPC, to be added in the array of charges, against the accused persons/opposite parties. Charge sheet was submitted by police on December 31, 2015. That was submitted against the husband under Section 302, 304B and 498A of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Against the rest of the FIR named accused persons, police could found materials of offence under Section 498A of the IPC and Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and only those were alleged against all the rest of the FIR named accused persons, excepting the husband.

3. The Court took cognizance of offences on January 3, 2016. The case was thereafter committed to the Sessions Judge, for trial, after completion of the statutory formality of service of copies of documents relied on by the prosecution, to the accused persons.

4. During this stage of Court proceedings, allegedly however, the complaint/petitioner, has not been notified by the Court. The petitioner’s grievance is with respect to that. He has said to have made representation before the Superintendent of Police, Purulia dated May 5, 2016, after he could gather knowledge about the fact. He also had filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Purulia, dated June 29, 2016, praying for rejection of charge sheet dated December 31, 2015. This was for the reason that the petitioner was also aggrieved with dropping of charges under Section 302 and 304B of the IPC, against FIR named accused persons, excepting the husband of the deceased lady. The petitioner had not only prayed for rejection of the charge sheet but also for necessary direction for further investigation in the case.

5. The impugned order dated August 8, 2016, was to reject petitioner’s such prayer, made before the Court.

6. Mr. Bhattacharrya, representing the petitioner here, says that various gross deviations and flaws would be apparent on the face of the records, as regards the investigations held. He would submit that investigation in a case is for the purpose of revealing the truth and the police officer is duty bound to take and comply each and every steps as necessary and statutorily provided, to reveal the truth in a case. He would, upon relying on the relevant documents, say that even the very relevant medical documents were still to be collected, when the charge sheet was submitted and necessary witnesses were left to be examined. That, when the investigation in a case of homicidal death of the victim, due to burn injuries, would be said to have been completed at this juncture, that would have to be a perfunctory investigation, he says.

7. Mr. Bhattacharrya has relied on a judgment of H.N. Rishbud vs. State of Dehli reported in AIR 1955 SC 196, particularly the following portion, to say that the same would be Hon’ble Apex Court’s observations, as regards the stages of investigation in a criminal case. He says that the guidelines provided therein have been flouted in this case.

“5………It is important to notice that where the investigation is conducted not by the officer in charge of the police station but by a subordinate officer (by virtue of one or other of the provisions enabling him to depute such subordinate officer for any of the steps in the investigation) such subordinate officer is to report the result of the investigation to the officer in charge of the police station. If, upon the completion of the investigation it appears to the officer in