Bombay High Court
Mala W/O Rahul Varma vs The Commissioner Of Police on 9 September, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:8838
Judgment 51-Cr.WP-696-2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 696 of 2025
...
Sau. Mala W/o. Rahul Varma,
Aged about 38 years, Occ. Nil,
R/o. Plot No.205-A, Ladikar Layout,
Manewada Road, Nagpur.
... PETITIONER
--VERSUS--
1] The Hon'ble Commissioner of Police,
Nagpur City, Nagpur.
2] The Hon'ble Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Having its office at Sakkardara Lake,
Sakkardara, Nagpur.
3] The Police Station Officer,
Police Station Hudkeshwar, Nagpur.
... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P.V. Dandwate, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Hulke, A.P.P. for the Respondents/State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2025.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 51-Cr.WP-696-2025
2
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Shri S.S.
Hulke, learned A.P.P. waives service for Respondents-State.
With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is
taken up for final hearing.
2. The present Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated
19/10/2024 in R.C.C. No.2216/2022 passed by Learned
Judicial Magistrate First Class, (M.V.) Court, Nagpur, wherein,
the application of the petitioner filed under Section 173(8) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was rejected by the
learned judge.
3. So as to decide the present petition, brief facts of the
case appears to be that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife
of Rahul Surajprasad Varma, and their marriage was
solemnized in the year 2011. Out of the said wedlock, the
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 51-Cr.WP-696-2025
couple has been blessed with one daughter and one son. A
dispute arose between the husband and wife, which resulted
into filing of certain proceedings. It is alleged that on
11/04/2022, at about 06:00 p.m., the husband of the
petitioner, Rahul Varma, entered the petitioner's house by
breaking the lock, and cut the wires of the fridge and cooler,
and scattered household articles. When the petitioner returned
home on the same day, at about 09:30 p.m., she found that her
husband had broken the lock, entered the house, and scattered
the household articles, as well as cut the wires of the fridge and
cooler. Based on these allegations, a written complaint was
filed on 12/04/2022. Thereafter, on 14/04/2022, First
Information Report No.230/2022 was registered with
Hudkeshwar Police Station. After completing the investigation,
a charge-sheet was filed on 19/05/2022 which resulted into
registration of R.C.C. No.2216/2022.
4. On 06/02/2024, the petitioner filed an application
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 51-Cr.WP-696-2025
under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
seeking issuance of directions to the Police Station
Hudkeshwar, Nagpur, for further investigation on the following
grounds:-
(i) The recitals in the written complaint dated
12/04/2022 are missing from the F.I.R. No.230/2022,
and therefore, the Investigating Officer, while
registering the F.I.R. dated 14/04/2022, deliberately
changed the facts.
(ii) The Duty officer was under an obligation to
accurately reproduce the contents of the written
complaint dated 12/04/2022 in the F.I.R. However,
the Duty Officer, Shyam Kanojiya, and the Police
Station Officer, Police Station Hudkeshwar, Nagpur,
deliberately failed to do so for reasons best known to
them.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 51-Cr.WP-696-2025
(iii) It was the duty of the Duty Officer to file the
written complaint dated 12/04/2022, alongwith the
charge-sheet, which he has failed to do.
(iv) The statements of the witnesses recorded by
the Investigating Officer were not properly recorded.
The statements are inconsistent with the complaint
dated 12/04/2022.
(v) The Investigating Officer has not conducted
the investigation properly.
Therefore, the petitioner filed an application for
further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, (M.V.) Court, Nagpur, by its order dated
19/10/2024, rejected the application of the petitioner on the
ground that in order to fill up the lacuna, the application for
further investigation has been filed.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 51-Cr.WP-696-2025
5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned A.P.P. on behalf of the
Respondents/State. The learned counsel for the petitioner
vehemently submits that there is variance between the written
complaint dated 12/04/2022 and the F.I.R dated 14/04/2022
as the basis for lodging F.I.R. No. 230/2022 ought to be the
complaint dated 12/04/2022. The concerned officer ought to
have reproduced the contents of the complaint in the F.I.R. He
further submits that the statements recorded under Section 161
are stereotypical in nature, and the Investigating Officer has not
recorded them according to the version of the witnesses.
Further, the spot panchanama does not reflect the incident that
occurred on 11/04/2022. There is also delay in registering
F.I.R. as though the petitioner has filed the complaint on
12/04/2022, the Investigating Officer has registered the F.I.R.
on 14/04/2022.
6. The learned A.P.P. submits that the learned Court
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 51-Cr.WP-696-2025
below has rightly passed the order as the Court below was
justified in rejecting the application, since it sans merit. The
F.I.R. No. 230/2022 was registered based on the complaint
dated 12/04/2022 and the statements were recorded as per the
version of the witnesses, not only that the spot panchanama is
supporting the case of the petitioner. He further submits that
there was no delay in registering the F.I.R. In view of the
dispute between husband and wife after registration of the
F.I.R., the Investigating Officer has carried out the investigation
so also filed the charge-sheet in accordance with Law. The
statements recorded by the Investigating Officer is supporting
the case of the petitioner, and therefore, there is no merit in the
petition, and it deserves to be dismissed.
7. So far as the law with respect to further investigation
is concerned, it is well settled that further investigation should
be directed only in exceptional circumstances, revealing
significant flaws in the investigation. In catena of judgments,
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 51-Cr.WP-696-2025
it was clarified that further investigation is not a routine
procedure, and the powers under Article 226 should be
exercised sparingly. Compelling reasons are required to direct
further investigation after filing of the charge-sheet and
commencement of the trial and a roving inquiry is not
permissible.
8. Keeping in mind the above parameters, it will be
appropriate to consider the submissions of the petitioner. It is
not in dispute that the petitioner has filed complaint on
12/04/2022 and based on that complaint, the F.I.R. came to be
registered on 14/04/2022. I have gone through the F.I.R.
dated 14/04/2022 and the written complaint dated
12/04/2022, and I do not find any variance in the contents of
the F.I.R. and the said complaint. Therefore, the submissions of
the petitioner is misconceived to that extent.
9. Further, the statements recorded under Section 161
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 51-Cr.WP-696-2025
seems to be supporting the F.I.R. Not only that, the spot
panchanama was also drawn, and whatever was found at the
spot has been recorded in the spot panchanama. It is necessary
to mention at this juncture that it would not lie in the mouth of
the petitioner to say that the contents of the complaint dated
12/04/2022 and the F.I.R. dated 14/04/2022 are different, as
she has signed F.I.R. No.230/2022. I have also gone through
the application dated 06/02/2024, wherein, the petitioner
seeks further investigation, as well as the impugned order. It
appears that the charge-sheet came to be filed on 02/06/2022
in the Court, the charges came to be framed on 13/06/2022
and the examination-in-chief of PW-1, i.e., the informant, came
to be recorded on 30/10/2023. Thereafter, the application for
further investigation was filed on 06/02/2024. Thus, it seems
that right from the registration of the F.I.R. till the filing of the
charge-sheet, and even after framing of charge and
examination-in-chief of the petitioner, the petitioner remained
silent.
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 51-Cr.WP-696-2025
10. There is no dispute that further investigation can be
directed in appropriate cases even during the trial, however,
there must be some exceptional circumstance or new material
or evidence which was not available at the time of the initial
investigation. Only under such circumstances, further
investigation can be directed. In the present case, the
petitioner has neither made out an exceptional case, nor
brought any new material on record, nor pointed out any flaw
in the investigation. Under such circumstances, further
investigation cannot be directed. I am also sensitive to the
settled position of law that the powers under Articles 226 or
227 of the Constitution of India, so far as further investigation
is concerned, are to be exercised only in exceptional
circumstances and sparingly. Therefore, considering the above
facts and circumstances, I do not find any error in the order
dated 19/10/2024 passed by Learned Judicial Magistrate First
Class, (M.V.) Court, Nagpur. Hence, the following order:-
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
Judgment 51-Cr.WP-696-2025
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Writ Petition No. 696/2025
is dismissed.
(ii) Rule stands discharged.
[ M. M. NERLIKAR, J ]
PIYUSH MAHAJAN
