Smt Umi Devi vs State And Ors

Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. claiming the following relief :-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this misc. petition may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 19.01.2018 and 29.09.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ravdhar, District Sirohi and the learned Special Judge, SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities Cases) Sirohi, respectively may kindly be quashed and set aside."

The limited bone of contention of the petitioner is that she had filed a complaint against the present respondent No.2, which was clubbed along with the complaint of the private respondent, and while submitting the result of the investigation, the investigating officer submitted a negative final report as far as the allegations of the petitioner are concerned, whereas charge-sheet was submitted as far as the allegations of the respondent No.2 are concerned. The petitioner without challenging the negative final report, to the extent of his complaint, has simply moved an application for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint of the petitioner has not been investigated / adjudicated upon at all.

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submit that since the alleged transaction from both sides was same, therefore, the criminal investigation was held in one FIR, and to the extent of the petitioner's complaint, the same was not found to be true and the same was accordingly closed whereas, to the extent of complaint filed by the respondent No.2, the charge-sheet was filed.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that once the complaint made by the petitioner was investigated by the police and no case was found to be made out, then at the time of acceptance of such report by the learned court below, the petitioner ought to have protested or ought to have challenged the said order. The petitioner instead filed an application after a gross delay on 10.11.2017 seeking further investigation in the complaint filed by him. This Court finds that at this stage, once the basic closure of the case filed by the petitioner was accepted by the learned court below and the said order is not under challenge, then the provision of Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. would not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Thus, the impugned orders passed by learned court below are well justified and calls for no interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Hence, the present misc. petition is dismissed.