A Magistrate possesses the statutory power under Section 173(8) CrPC to direct further investigation to ensure justice is met. The absence of formal receipts for matrimonial property or delays in filing an FIR do not justify stifling an investigation, as the search for truth remains the primary objective.

Judgment :

UDAY KUMAR, J.

INTRODUCTION

1. The inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) are invoked to examine the propriety of a revisional order that stifles the truth-seeking process at its nascent stage. The Petitioner, the de facto complainant and a victim of matrimonial discord, seeks the quashing of the judgment and order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track 4th Court, Barasat, in Criminal Revision No. 04 of 2022.

2. By the said order, the Revisional Court proceeded to set aside a well-reasoned direction for 'further investigation' issued by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, regarding the non-recovery of the petitioner’s stridhan property and misappropriated funds; a decision predicated primarily on the grounds of chronological delay and an alleged lack of documentary evidence.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The narrative of the Petitioner, Shweta Loharuka, discloses a matrimonial alliance with the Opposite Party No. 1, Aditya Vikram Agarwal, that was ostensibly high on expectations but, as alleged, hollow in substance. Solemnized on 26.01.2017, the union was purportedly marred by persistent dowry demands and an egregious fraud—the husband’s knowing concealment of his physical incapacity to consummate the marriage. Driven by systematic cruelty, the Petitioner was eventually forced to seek refuge in the sanctuary of her parental home in 2018.

4. On 10.01.2021, the Petitioner set the criminal law in motion by lodging an FIR at Lake Town Police Station, registered as Case No. 9 of 2021, under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. While the investigating agency effected a partial recovery of stridhan articles on 23.08.2021, the probe appeared to hit an abrupt stalemate. This stagnation occurred despite the Petitioner’s categorical assertion that high-value gold ornaments and cash to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- remained under the dishonest misappropriation of the accused.

5. Notwithstanding these glaring lacunae, a Charge Sheet (No. 185 of 2021) was filed on 30.08.2021. The Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bidhannagar, upon a meticulous perusal of the Case Diary, found the investigation to be perfunctory and rightly declined to take cognizance. Exercising the statutory mandate under Section 173(8) of the Code, the Learned Magistrate, vide order dated 18.12.2021, directed a further probe to trace the missing articles and collect relevant receipts. The judicial perspicacity/mind applied by the Learned Magistrate is best reflected in the following observation:

"Perused the CD and other materials on record. It appears to me that some of the stridhan articles could not be recovered by the IO. In this circumstance, cognizance of CS is not taken. IC is directed to take steps for further investigat