IMPORTANT POINT
The duty of the investigating officer to communicate the filing of the charge-sheet to the complainant is mandatory under Section 173(2)(ii) of Cr.P.C., and the absence of prescribed mode and manner of communication undermines the intent and purpose of the provision.

JUDGMENT

Index to the Judgment

Factual Background

Submissions By Both The Parties

Analysis and Findings

i. Mandate of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C.

ii. Grievance of the Petitioner.

iii. Directions apropos mandate of Section 173(2)(ii) of Cr.P.C.

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. By way of present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C'), the petitioner seeks quashing/setting aside of order dated 30.11.2022, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTSC) (RC), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in FIR No. 0382/2019 for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC') registered at Police Station Nabi Karim, Delhi.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the present FIR was registered on 13.11.2019 on the basis of complaint filed by the petitioner wherein she had alleged that accused Rishabh Jain had established physical relations with her several times at various places on the false pretext of marriage. As per the statement of petitioner, the accused had approached her for friendship in March 2015, after which, they used to meet with each other and accused had proposed her for marriage. Thereafter, accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 25 lakh from the mother of the petitioner as dowry to marry her which she had agreed to pay after selling her shop, but the shop was later demolished by MCD. The accused had met the petitioner various times after this, and had established physical relations with her on the false pretext of marriage, but had married some other girl without informing the petitioner. Thereafter, when the petitioner had confronted the accused, she was threatened by the uncle of accused. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered. During the course of investigation, medical examination of the petitioner was conducted. The accused was arrested on 13.11.2019. Later, the accused had been enlarged on bail by learned Trial Court vide order dated 30.11.2019. The charge sheet in the present case was filed after investigation on 15.01.2020, and charges were framed by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 04.02.2020 under Sections 376(2)(n)/420 of IPC against accused/respondent no. 2 Rishabh Jain and under Section 506 of IPC against accused Purushottam Jain.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner/complainant had moved an application under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. on 26.02.2020 for further investigation in the case, which was dismissed vide order dated 30.11.2022 by the learned Trial Court. The concluding portion of the order has been reproduced as under:

"...Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussions and in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya Vs. State of Gujarat (Supra), this Court is of the opinion that the present application u/s. 173 (8) Cr.PC filed by prosecutrix for further investigation is not maintainable, as trial has already commenced in this case with framing of charge against the accused and aforesaid application is accordingly dismissed..."

SUBMISSIONS BY BOTH THE PARTIES

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that further investigation is required in the present case since the police has ignored certain vital points of investigation which were mentioned by the complainant, including obtaining the details of hotels which the complainant and the accused had visited. It is further stated that the chargesheet/final report of the investigation was never communicated to the petitioner and charges were framed in her absence.

5. Per contra, learned APP for the State argues that no new fact has been raised by the petitioner, and the investigating officer has sufficiently investigated on all the issues which were mentioned by the complainant in her statement and during the course of investigation.

6. This Court has heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State, and has perused material on record.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

7