State Of Manipur vs Thounaojam Brinda

The State has filed M.C. (Criminal Petition) No.13 of 2020 seeking to dismiss Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 filed by the respondent.

Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 has been filed by the respondent under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 21.8.2020 passed by

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal West in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.110 of 2020, thereby allowing the revival of the FIR

No.270(5)2012 on the file of Imphal Police Station registered under Sections 328/511/447/506/34 IPC, later added Sections 354/307/120-B IPC and

Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act.

The case of the petitioner State is that by the order dated 21.8.2020, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, in exercise of the power conferred under

Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., ordered further investigation of the case even after the submission of the report under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. It is stated

that the respondent has not challenged the FIR and neither prayed for its quashing, while the order impugned in the Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 is

consequential to the exercise of power related to the need for proper and complete investigation in respect of the said FIR. Hence, in the absence of

challenge to the FIR, the respondent has no right to seek quashing of the order dated 21.8.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Further case of the State is that the respondent was not arrayed as an accused in the FIR and she is not a party to the proceedings of the said FIR

in respect to which the impugned order has been passed. Hence, the Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is malafide

attempt to indirectly seek an order retraining the Magistrate and the investigating agency from exercising the power vested in the Court under Section

319 Cr.P.C., which provide for power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of the offence. Therefore, by way of filing Criminal

Petition No.22 of 2020 under Section 482 Cr.P.C., what cannot be done directly has been sought to be done and achieved indirectly, which is per se

held to be not permissible in law. Hence, the State has filed the instant Miscellaneous Petition No.13 of 2020 to dismiss the Criminal Petition No.22 of

2020 as not maintainable in law, as the same is also premature.

The respondent filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the provision mentioned by the petitioner State i.e., under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has no

application in the instant case and with regards to the statement about the Magistrate’s power under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate shall

exercise his power as per the provision provided therein only when the investigating officer obtains further evidence. However, in the instant FIR, the

investigating officer failed to produce new evidence and the same is clearly mentioned in the impugned order dated 21.8.2020 passed by the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate itself. It is stated that the respondent was not arrayed as an accused, however, in the subsequent order dated 5.9.2020

passed in the bail application, the respondent was arrayed as an accused without any basis and foundation. Since the respondent has been named as

an accused in the said order dated 5.9.2020, a grave prejudice has caused in the peaceful life of the respondent and has brought an atmosphere of

mistrust in the family. As such the respondent seek to challenge the impugned order dated 21.8.2020 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

allowing to revive the FIR No.270(5)2012.

Mr. Rarry, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 filed by the

respondent under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is per se not maintainable in law and that the respondent has not pleaded any of the sustainable ground for

quashing the criminal proceedings. He would submit that the exercise of power for re- opening of the investigation by the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, after the submission of the final report, is permissible in law.

The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the respondent was not named in the FIR and also not named in the impugned

order dated 21.8.2020 and accordingly, she has no say in the matter. He would further submit that since the respondent is not a named accused or

even a witness examined, at such initial stage when the impugned order dated 21.8.2020 was passed, the respondent has no say in the matter as the

investigation into the crime is at the nascent stage. Hence, the respondent cannot be permitted to invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The learned Additional Advocate General then submitted that the Criminal Petition is filed contrary to the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court that quashing criminal proceeding is to be done in the rarest of rare case and the allegations made in the FIR for complaint cannot be inquired

into, as to the reliability or genuineness, when a cognizable offence justifying the registration of a case and investigation thereon is made out.

The learned Additional Advocate General next submitted that the Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 has been filed premature, as the respondent in

her affidavit-in-opposition clearly stated that a grave prejudice has been caused as she has been named as an accused in the Court order dated

5.9.2020, subsequently passed, after the re-opening of the investigation vide impugned order dated 21.8.2020. The cause of action or the legal wrong,

as per the own case of the respondent is dated 5.9.2020. However, neither the said order dated 05.09.2020 nor the FIR challenged. Hence, the

Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 is bad in law having filed premature before the cause of action having arisen in favour of the respondent.

The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that when the provision of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C provides for further evidence even

by way of oral besides documentary, the respondent who is not even named accused in the FIR, cannot claim in an application filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C. that further material evidence has not been forwarded and submitted for re-opening the case while passing the impugned order dated

21.8.2020. The pleadings of the respondent seeking for quashing the impugned order dated 21.8.2020 is solely based on the plea that Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. has no application in the said FIR case, cannot be permitted to be expanded in argument so to allow the respondent to travel beyond the

pleading as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the singular defence of the respondent that Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has no

application in passing of the impugned order being contrary to the law settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Advocate General

prayed for dismissal of Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020.

To fortify his submissions, the learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the following decisions:

• Mohd. Safi v. Mohd. Rafiq and another, (2007) 14 SCC 544.

• Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. The State of Gujarat, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1346.

• Arijit Bagchi and others v. State, Crl.O.P.(MD) No.183 of 2005 and connected petitions, decided on 15.12.2017 by the Madras High Court.

• Digvijay Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, M.Cr.C.No.33397 of 2018, decided on 17.3.2020 by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

• Nongmaithem Ongbi Bhanu Devi v. State of Manipur, W.P.(C) No.861 of 2017, decided on 16.5.2019 by the Manipur High Court.

Per contra, Mr. Gunedhor, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that in the instant case the final report was submitted on the ground

that the case is true, but no clue was found and with liberty to revive the FIR when clue was found in the future. However, by the order dated

15.3.2013, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and upon perusing the

materials available before him, exercising the authority under Section 173 Cr.P.C., did not accept the investigation officer’s request to revive the

FIR if any clue comes to light in future and that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate closed the case by concluding that the investigating officer has

fully investigated the FIR case. There is no material for showing the need for further investigation of the said FIR case. He would submit that the

complainant was heard and he has no objection or protest to the findings and conclusion of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while passing the

order dated 15.3.2013. Therefore, the order dated 15.3.2013 was final order disposing of the case in connection with the FIR No.270(5)2012. Hence,

the impugned order dated 21.8.2020 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowing the revival of the FIR No.270(5)2012 under Criminal

Miscellaneous Case No.110 of 2020 is barred by virtue of Section 362 of Cr.P.C.

The learned counsel for the Respondent further submitted that in the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 21.8.2020

while the case in connection with the said FIR was already disposed of as closed by adjudicating the parties. Consequently, since by order dated

15.3.2013 the case was finally disposed of as closed by adjudicating the concerned parties, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to

grant permission to the investigating officer under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to conduct further investigation as contemplated in Section 362 Cr.P.C.. He

would therefore submit that if the Officer-in-Charge of the Imphal Police Station wants to do further investigation, he has to challenge the order dated

15.3.2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate before a higher forum and only after getting the order dated 15.3.2013 set aside, the

investigating officer could further investigate the case. Arguing so, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 21.8.2020 reviving the

FIR and allowing further investigation was passed without jurisdiction and without authority of law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

The learned counsel then submitted that even assuming for the sake of argument that the power of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under

Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is an independent judicial power to grant permission because statutorily the investigating officer has been empowered to do

further investigation and the exercise of the said power shall not amount to varying, modifying, or cancelling the earlier order dated 15.3.2013,

notwithstanding the fact whether the said earlier order dated 15.3.2013 is a final judicial order or a non-judicial order, the impugned order dated

21.8.2020 can only be passed when fresh fact was submitted to the Court. In the instant case, the application dated 21.8.2020 of the Officer-in-

Charge of Imphal Police Station does not contain any new fact or fresh fact while seeking permission to revive the FIR and that the information

furnished by the Officer-in-Charge in the application dated 21.8.2020 is not a new fact or evidence.

The learned counsel next submitted that it is clear from the order impugned dated 21.8.2020 that reviving the said FIR which clearly observed that

the prayer in the present application fails to show details of new evidences found including particulars of the identities of persons who had visited

Sikkim to take back the complainant Mayanglambam Khelendro. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate also further observed that in fact, the

particulars of the said persons were already revealed from the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of witnesses. As such the identities of two

persons were not new or fresh fact and it was already revealed back in 2012-13 when the case was closed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

by order dated 15.3.2013. The learned counsel submitted that even though the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was aware that the applicant failed to

disclose new facts or evidence while seeking the revival of the FIR, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the application for further

investigation. Therefore the impugned order was passed without application of mind in a mechanical manner and in contrary to the provision of law.

The learned counsel further submitted that the State contended that the respondent was not arrayed as an accused in the FIR and hence, the

Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 is a malafide attempt to indirectly seek an order restraining the Magistrate and the investigating agency from

exercising the power vested in the Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. According to the learned counsel, the contention of the State is without merit.

He would submit that even though the respondent was not named in the FIR, the respondent is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.8.2020 on

the following reasons:

(i) The said FIR No.270(5)2012 registered due to a complaint filed by the complainant on 30.5.2012. However, by letter dated 2.6.2012 to the Officer-

in- Charge, Imphal Police Station by the same complainant, it was stated that the said complaint was filed due to misunderstanding between the

respondent and the complainant and his wife. The letter also stated that the misunderstanding was sorted out that the respondent was not involved in

the case and requested to withdraw the FIR No.270(5)2012.

(ii) Because of the respondent’s involvement in the said FIR, her appointment to the Manipur Public Service Commission was deferred and only

when the said FIR was closed, appointment order was issued on 4.4.2013.

(iii) After the impugned revival order dated 21.8.2020, the respondent was termed as main accused and the entire accusations was revolved around

the respondent as observed from the bail objection and the bail rejected order dated 5.9.2020 of accused A.Manju Singh, L.Gopal and Md. Imran

Hussain @ Boi.

The learned counsel finally submitted that in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 21.8.2020 passed by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate reviving the FIR No.270(5)2012 which was disposed of as closed by adjudicating the concerned parties vide order

dated 15.3.2013 eight years ago by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate is without jurisdiction and without authority of law and therefore, the impugned

order dated 21.8.2020 is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the instant Miscellaneous Case No.13 of 2020 filed by the State deserves to be dismissed

as devoid of merits.

In support, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the following decisions:

• Bhagwant Singh V. Commissioner of Police and another, (1985) 2 SCC 357.

• Union Public Service Commission v. S.Papaiah, (1997) 7 SCC 614.

• Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, (2001) 1 SCC 169.

• Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC 1791.

• Chinnathambi @ Subramani v. State, 2017 (2) CTC 241.

This Court considered the submissions raised by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

It appears that FIR No.270(5)2012 has been registered by the Imphal Police Station on 30.5.2012 at 7.30 A.M. upon receipt of a written report

lodged by the complainant Mayanglambam Khelendro Singh of Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai stating that on 29.5.2012 at 5.30 P.M., when he

was attending a housie play nearby his house, his wife Geetabala Devi, who was alone at his home, was forcibly tied her hands and mouth by using

thick cello tape and gave her an unknown injection by three unknown persons who came in Honda Activa red colour motorcycle. When he heard the

shouting and crying of her wife, he along with others rushed to the spot where his wife told the incident and after the incident three unknown persons

drove away on their bike.

It also appears that during the course of investigation, despite efforts, no clue was found in the case about the unknown culprits and the case was

finally submitted in FR vide No.17/IPS/2013 dated 04.3.2013 on the ground of no clue. In the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by the

Officer-in- Charge of Imphal Police Station, it has been stated as under:

“During the course of investigation, the complainant was examined carefully where corroborate with the O/E of the case. Visited the scene of the

crime acted minutely. Some PWs was also examined, however none could if clue heading to the crime. A sketch map of the P.O. was drawn. The

victim Geetabala Devi was taken to Bataina and her blood sample was tested and report was all well and fine. Hectic efforts were made to effect

arrest of the three unknown. Suspected persons were examined, however, I could not collect idence or clue leading to the arrest of the unknown

accused persons. Great effort, I could not get any clue and moreover, none approached to give any clue leading to the crime. Discussed the merit and

demerit of the case with my superior officers and advised me to return the case in FR instead of keeping the case long pending on the ground that

“the case is true but no clueâ€. However, if any clue to light in future, then the case may be revived. Therefore, the Hon’ble Magistrate is

prayed kindly to accept the case in “FR†on the ground that “the case is true but no clueâ€. However, if any clue to light in future, then the

case may revive.â€​

As admitted by the parties, by the order dated 15.3.2013, the final report filed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Imphal Police Station was accepted

upon hearing the complainant as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the criminal proceeding of the FIR No.270(5)2012 was closed.

It is the plea of the respondent that since the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the investigating officer’s request to revive the

FIR if any clue comes to light in future, later on the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by the order impugned, cannot order further investigation of the

case and the revival of FIR No.270(5)2012 under the impugned order dated 21.8.2020 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.110 of 2020 passed by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is barred by virtue of Section 362 Cr.P.C. In support, the learned counsel relied upon the decision in the case of Hari

Singh Mann (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“10. Section 362 of the Code mandates that no court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case shall alter or review the

same except to correct a clerical or an arithmetical error. The section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally

disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer

for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The court

becomes functus officio the moment the official order disposing of a case is signed. Such an order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting

a clerical or an arithmetical error. The reliance of the respondent on Talab Haji Hussain case [AIR 1958 SC 376 : 1958 Cri LJ 701 : 1958 SCR 1226]

is misconceived. Even in that case it was pointed that inherent powers conferred on High Courts under Section 561-A (Section 482 of the new Code)

has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section

itself. It is not disputed that the petition filed under Section 482 of the Code had been finally disposed of by the High Court on 7-1- 1999. The new

Section 362 of the Code which was drafted keeping in view the recommendations of the 41st report of the Law Commission and the Joint Select

Committees appointed for the purpose, has extended the bar of review not only to the judgment but also to the final orders other than the judgment.

In the present case, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 21.8.2020 on the following lines:

“This is an application for revival of the FIR No.270(5)2012 Imphal PS u/s 328/511/447/506/34 IPC which was already submitted in FR to the

Court.

Regd. As Cril. Misc. Case. Heard. Perused the application.

It is submitted that the above case was registered at Imphal Police Station on 30/5/2012 at 7:30 am on receipt of a written report lodged by the

complainant Mayanglambam Khelendro Singh H/o M.(O) Geetabala Dwevi of Thangmeiband Hijam Dewan Leikai stating that on 29/5/2012 at 5:30

pm when he was attending a House play nearby his house his wife, who was alone at his home, was forcibly tied by her hands and mouth by using

thick Cello tape and gave her an unknown injection by three unknown person who came in Honda Activa red in colour. When he heard the shouting

and crying of her wife, he along with others rushed to the spot. His wife told him about the incident and that the three unknown culprits drove away on

their bike.

It is further submitted that despite vigorous efforts no clue was found in the case and thus the case was finally submitted as F.R. vide no.17/IPS/2013

dated 04/03/2013 on the ground of “No Clueâ€. And the same was accepted by the Court vide order dated 15/03/2013. Further, it is submitted that

after the acceptance of F.R. and closure of the said FIR, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner the identities of two persons who once visited

Sikkim and forcibly brought the complainant to Imphal, was revealed by a source. Hence, the case.

From perusal of the prayer as well as the case records including the F.R. and its related matters, I find the case was not properly investigated from

the beginning itself. Further the prayer in the present application also fails to show details of the new evidences found including particulars of the

identities of persons who had visited Sikkim to take back the complainant Mayanglambam Khelendro Singh. In fact, the particulars of the said persons

were already revealed from Statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of witnesses, however, they and the main accused person were never arrested in the case.

Now, with the prayer for revival of the FIR No.270(5)2012 Imphal PS u/s.328/511/447/506/34 IPC, I am of the opinion that the same be revived and

properly investigated to find out the truth about the whole matters, even though the complainant himself had accepted the F.R. submitted by the

previous I.O., as shown in the order dt. 15/03/2013, and the offences alleged contains Non-Compoundable offences which are serious and grave.

Hence, the prayer is allowed. The I.O. is to further investigate the above referred FIR case properly and submit report at the earliest.

Return the Case Diary to the Petitioner. Announced.

Thus disposed.

Furnish a copy of the order to the petitioner I.O.â€​

According to the learned counsel for the respondent, in the instant case, there is no ongoing proceeding or process where the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate can exercise the power of further investigation under Section 156(3) or Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and that by a judicial order dated

15.3.2013, the criminal proceeding in connection with the instant FIR was already closed and disposed of. Therefore, the revival of the FIR is

unsustainable in law.

On the other hand, it is the say of the State that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed the impugned order dated 21.8.2020 in exercise

of the power conferred under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., which gives power to the Magistrate to order further investigation under the said Section

being an independent power and even after the submission of the final report under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

Admittedly, in the order impugned dated 21.8.2020, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not mentioned the provision under which the

application filed by the State has been allowed, thereby reviving the FIR. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that by the order dated 16.2.2021, this

Court called for a report from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate explaining that under which provision the order dated 21.8.2020 was passed and

why he has not mentioned the provision for registering the Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.110 of 2020 in the order dated 21.8.2020. By the order

dated 19.2.2021, this Court also called for the records from the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Pursuant to the order this Court dated 16.2.2021, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, submitted his report and same is set out herein under:

“REPORT as per HCM/MC (Cril.Petn) 13/2020/2821 dated 16/02/2021:

At the outset, it is most humbly submitted that the undersigned was not the Presiding Officer who passed the Order dated 21-08-2020 whereby the

F.I.R. Case No.270(5)2012 IPS U/s 328/511/447/506 IPC was revived. The undersigned joined this Office on 31-08-2020 after being transferred from

the Court of Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Imphal East vide an Order dated 21-08-2021 with reference to HCM/MJS/T-1/92-Estt/11614 of the High Court of

Manipur.

The Order dated 21-08-2020 was passed by my predecessor, namely, Shri Lamkhanpau Tonsing who is at present working as Presiding Officer of

Special Court (ND & PS), Fast Track Court, Manipur on being promoted to MJS Grade-I. Accordingly, it seems that it would be my processor officer

who can most conveniently explain as to why the provision under which the aforesaid FIR case was revived by registering the Cril. Misc. Case

No.110/2020. The undersigned also perused the order dated 21-08-2020 passed in Cril.Misc.Case No.110/2020 and it is indeed clearly seen that no

specific provision as such was mentioned while registered the Cril. Misc. Case No.110/2020 filed by the I.O. of the aforesaid FIR case. However,

considering the factual positions as mentioned in the order dated 21-08-2020, it seems that the revival of the FIR case which was kept in file for

“no clueâ€​ during the course of investigation can be revived as per Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and the same is reproduced as below:-

Section 173(8) Cr.P.C:

(8) “Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub-section (2) has been

forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or

documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed: and the provisions of sub-

section (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section

(2)â€​.

Again for kind perusal of the entire case record, I am transmitting the photostate copy of the aforesaid case record to the Registry of the High Court

of Manipur.â€​

Thus, as per the report of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, it is evident that the revival of the FIR, which was kept in file for no clue during

the course of investigation, can be revived as per Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. While reviving the FIR, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate clearly stated

that the case was not properly investigated from the beginning itself even though the application of the State fails to show details of the new

evidences. Ultimately, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate revived the FIR No.270(5)2012 for proper investigation to find out the truth. This Court

finds no infirmity in such conclusion and/or finding arrived at by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, as the State has categorically stated that the

continued efforts and sources reveals the identities of two persons who once visited at Sikkim and forcibly brought the complainant at Imphal and the

above two persons are highly required arrest in the case and interrogation for detection of the truth of the case and for further investigation. Thus,

upon satisfying the State’s plea, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, revived the FIR No.270(5)2012, by the order dated 21.08.2020.

At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and also she was not named in the impugned order dated

21.8.2020. Thus, according to the State, the respondent has no say in the matter. We find some force in the said submission of the State.

The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that because of the respondent’s involvement in the said FIR, her appointment was deferred

and only when the said FIR was closed, she was appointed vide order dated 4.4.2013. The learned counsel further submitted that after the impugned

revival order dated 21.8.2020, the respondent was termed as main accused and that the entire accusations was revolved around the respondent as

observed in the order dated 5.9.2020 of accused persons while rejecting their bail application.

Placing reliance upon Chinnathambi (supra), the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that anyone who is aggrieved by any order made by

the Magistrate for further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. may approach the higher forum for remedy. Therefore, being aggrieved by

the order dated 21.8.2020, the respondent is entitled to approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There is no dispute over such proposition.

However, since the respondent failed to establish her array of party in the FIR in question, this Court is of the view that the respondent has no say in

the matter and she cannot entitle to file petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 21.8.2020 reviving the FIR. As stated

supra, in the impugned order also, the respondent was not arrayed as party.

It is apposite to mention that the Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 filed by the respondent is premature, as in her affidavit-in-opposition to the

M.C.No.13 of 2020 itself, she has categorically stated that a grave prejudice has been caused as she has been named as an accused in the order

dated 5.9.2020, subsequently passed, after the re-opening of the investigation. Thus, it is clear that the cause of action or the legal wrong, as per the

case of the respondent is dated 5.9.2020. The respondent neither challenged the order dated 5.9.2020 nor challenged the FIR. Thus, as rightly argued

by the learned Additional Advocate General, the Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 is bad in law having filed premature before the cause of action

having arisen in favour of the respondent.

In Vinubhai (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate for further investigation is to ensure

that no innocent person is wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out.

It is settled that the power of the Magistrate cannot be narrowly and restrictively viewed as such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with

Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and such power would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before

the trial actually commences.

It is also well settled that the Code of Criminal Procedure leaves clear scope for conducting of further inquiry and filing of a supplementary charge

sheet, if necessary, with such additional facts and evidence as may be collected by the investigating officer in terms of sub-sections (2) to (6) of

Section 173 Cr.P.C. to the Court. To put it short, further investigation by the investigating agency, after presentation of a charge sheet in terms of

Section 173 Cr.P.C., is permissible in any case impliedly, but in no event is impermissible.

According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the alleged identities of the two persons were not new or fresh fact, it was already revealed

back in 2012-2013 when the case was closed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by the order dated 15.3.2013. It is also the submission of the

respondent that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was aware that the State failed to disclose new facts or evidence while seeking the revival of

the FIR. Thus, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed the impugned order without application of mind .

The new fact asserted by the State is identities of two persons who once visited at Sikkim and forcibly brought the complainant at Imphal and

those two persons are required to be arrested in the case and interrogation for detecting the truth and for further investigation. Though the said plea of

the State has been denied by the respondent, at this stage, the said aspect of the matter cannot be gone into and the same would be decided only after

a thorough investigation and the trial. That apart, the plea of the respondent that reviving of the said FIR when the matter was settled and closed

cannot be said that the respondent is not aggrieved by the said revival order. This Court finds that the said aspect of the matter also cannot be gone

into at this stage because as on date, the respondent has no role to play in the FIR in question and only upon revival of the FIR and further

investigation and upon she being implicated in the case, if any, then only she can raise all points and not now. Further, based on the bail rejection order

dated 5.9.2020 of the accused persons, the respondent cannot be termed as she is the main accused in the crime.

Further, the locus to file the Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 asserted by the respondent is not convincing. On the other hand, in the given facts and

circumstances of the case, the respondent has no locus to file the Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020, which is premature.

In the instant case, only when fresh fact and/or clue come to light, the State has filed application before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for

revival of the FIR, which was earlier closed on the ground of no clue. In fact, while filing the final report, the Officer-in-Charge of the Imphal Police

Station clearly stated that “the Hon’ble Magistrate is prayed kindly to accept the case in FR on the ground that the case is true but no clue.

However, if any clue to light in future, then the case may reviveâ€. It is true that while closing the FIR earlier, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate

has not given any liberty to the State to revive the FIR at the future point of time when clue come to light.

The respondent cannot take advantage and rely on the ground that the Court concerned has not given liberty to the State to revive the FIR at

future of point of time. Though liberty was not given to revive the FIR, taking note of the heinous of the crime, the Magistrate is empowered to order

revival of the FIR which was closed earlier and the question of delay also does not a matter. When the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate finds that the

case was not properly investigated from the beginning, he is under obligation to order further investigation by reviving the FIR and in the instant case,

the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly ordered revival of the FIR.

In the instant case, the pleadings of the respondent seeking to quash the impugned order dated 21.8.2020 solely based upon the plea that Section

156(3) of Cr.P.C. has no application in the said FIR case cannot be permitted to be expanded in argument so as to allow the respondent to travel

beyond the pleading.

It is reiterated that the materials produced by the parties as well as the records called for by this Court, would clearly prove that the final report

mentions that the registration of the case was found to be based on true facts and the case was returned in final report as no clue was found at that

time despite best efforts made by the investigating officer. However, while filing the final report, the Officer-in-Charge of the Imphal Police Station

sought liberty to revive the final report when clue was found. As stated supra, the clue for revival of FIR though denied by the respondent, prima

facie, there is no basis for such denial, as the respondent is no way related to the FIR No.270(5)2012 in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

Therefore, upon analysing the materials produced before him, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, rightly found that earlier the case was not properly

investigated and therefore, further investigation is required. This Court is of the view that in exercise of the power vested in law under Section 156

Cr.P.C. as clue was disclosed by the Officer-in-Charge of the Imphal Police Station, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has rightly ordered further

investigation in this case and revived the FIR in question. This Court find that there is no illegality in the said exercise of power. Moreover, as stated

supra, the respondent has not challenged the FIR in question. In the absence of any challenge to FIR, the respondent has no locus to question and/or

challenge the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate impugned in Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that even assuming that the power of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under

Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. is an independent judicial power to grant permission as statutorily the investigating officer has been empowered to do further

investigation and the exercise of the said power shall not amount to varying, modifying or cancelling the earlier order dated 15.3.2013, notwithstanding

the fact whether the said order dated 15.3.2013 is a final judicial order or a non-judicial order, the impugned order dated 21.8.2020 can only be passed

when fresh fact was submitted to the Court. As stated supra, only after fresh fact and the clue came light and established by the State, the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered further investigation by reviving the FIR. Therefore, this Court finds no force in the arguments of the learned

counsel for the respondent. Further more, the delay canvassed by the respondent also cannot be countenanced, as in order to ascertain the truth in the

crime, the Court has rightly ordered further investigation even after a long years exercising the judicial power.

It is pertinent to note that the respondent anticipating that she may also be proceeded against in respect of the said FIR in terms of Section 319

Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to stop the object of a proper and complete investigation under the garb of filing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Section

482 Cr.P.C. can be exercised only when no other remedy is available to the litigant. In the instant case, since the respondent was not named in the

FIR, she cannot invoke Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction.

It is settled that Court should not interfere with the investigation or during the course of investigation which would mean from the time of the

lodging of the FIR till the submission of the report by the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station in Court under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. Since the

order impugned in the Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 is an exercise of power under Section 156 Cr.P.C., it falls within the ambit of course of

investigation. Therefore, the respondent has no right to question the same, as she was not a party to the order impugned dated 21.8.2020.

In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where investigation into the circumstances of an alleged cognizable offence is

carried on under the provisions of Cr.P.C., the High Court does not interfere with such investigation because it would then be the impeding

investigation and jurisdiction of statutory authorities to exercise power in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the High Court also does

not ordinarily inquire as to whether the evidence is reliable or not.

Since the respondent has not specifically made any sustainable legal pleading, based on settled law, as to how passing of the impugned order dated

21.8.2020 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had abused the process of law or Court or how the ends of justice cannot met in carrying out the

investigation as per law in terms of the unchallenged FIR, the prayer of the respondent to quash the order dated 21.8.2020 sought in Criminal Petition

No.22 of 2020 cannot be acceded to. This Court finds that there is no basis in the petition being Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 filed by the

respondent.

Since the decisions relied on by the respondent are not directly applicable to the facts of the present case, the same are not elaborated upon in this

order. Further, since the law is well settled that Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. gives power to the Magistrate to order further investigation, some of the

decisions relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General on this aspect have also not been elaborated.

For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the view that the respondent has no locus to question the impugned order of the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate dated 21.8.2020 and thus, Miscellaneous Case No.13 of 2020 filed by the State is liable to be allowed.

In fine, Miscellaneous Case No.13 of 2020 is allowed. Consequently, Criminal Petition No.22 of 2020 filed by the respondent is dismissed.