1 2025:CGHC:51272 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3120 of 2025 1 - Prakash Patel S/o Jagdish Patel Aged About 33 Years (Aadhar No.- 9983 4638 2032) R/o Navagadi Rajapara, Police Station City Kotwali, Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Jutemill, Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sampatlal Chouhan S/o Late Shri Baratu Ram Chouhan Aged About 53 Years R/o Kedimuda, Thana Jutemill, Raigarh, Tahsil Raigarh, District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Deputy G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 14/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short BNSS”), against the order dated 11-09-2025, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, in Sessions Case No. 80/2024, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2025.10.18 14:51:05 +0530 2 193 (9) of the BNSS has been rejected. 2. The subject matter in brief is that the petitioner is an accused in the Sessions Case No. 80/2024, pending before the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. It is alleged that the daughter of the complainant/respondent No. 2 committed suicide on 20-05-2024 by hanging herself in her house by the ceiling fan. It is alleged that the deceased was having love affair with the petitioner/accused, who is her teacher and already a married person. There was some incident of altercation between them and their family members at Nehru Garden, Raigarh, two days before the date of the incident. For that reason, the deceased committed suicide on 20-05-2024. Merg was informed to the police, and after investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner, for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. 3. The charge for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC was framed, and the trial of the case started. Up to 30-08-2025, a total of 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the learned trial court and their cross-examination has also been completed. After examination of the P.W. 12 Kamta Prasad Chauhan, the petitioner/accused has filed an application under Section 193 (9) of the BNSS, 2023, for a direction to the police for further investigation and to submit a supplementary charge sheet. The petitioner filed the said application on the ground that there had been a telephonic talk between the deceased and the complainant, P.W. 5/father of the deceased, on 20-05-2024 for about 08 minutes on the mobile phone of 3 the deceased, but the complainant has denied that the said mobile was of the deceased and said that it was the mobile of his middle daughter. Constable Kamta Prasad Chauhan, P.W. 12, deposed that it was the mobile phone of the deceased. Therefore, the concerned police may be directed to investigate the matter further and to file a supplementary charge sheet. The application filed by the petitioner/accused was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 11-09-2025, which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is material irregularity in the earlier investigation, and the entire material was not produced by the prosecution along with the charge sheet. From the evidence of the complainant and Constable Kamta Prasad Chauhan, it prima facie reveals that the police authorities have not investigated the matter with respect to the call details of the mobile phone of the deceased. It would be necessary for a just decision of the case. he would further submit that the power to order further investigation would not cease only because the charge sheet has been filed. During the course of the trial, the complainant/father of the deceased was examined as P.W. 5, who admitted that he had a telephonic call with the mobile number 6267490275, just before the incident, but the same was suppressed before the police. It is further corroborated from the evidence of P.W. 12, a constable who proved the CDR and CAF of the mobile phones seized in the case, and therefore, the petitioner moved his application for further investigation. It is also submitted that in such a tainted investigation, there is every possibility of defeating the ends of 4 justice. The Court has ample powers to direct further investigation as provided under Section 193(9) of the BNSS, 2023, to secure the ends of justice. Therefore, the petition may be allowed, and the police authorities may be directed to further investigate the matter and to submit a supplementary charge sheet in the case. He would rely upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in “Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujrat and Others” 2004 (5) SCC 347, and “Anant Thanur Karmuse v. State of Maharashtra and Others” 2023 (5) SCC 802. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions and submits that after due process of investigation, a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner. During the investigation, the statement of P.W. 5, the complainant/father of the deceased, was recorded, but he did not disclose that he had a telephonic call with his daughter at that particular time. After recording statements of other witnesses, the charge sheet was filed. There was no disclosure of the fact that the father of the deceased had a telephone call with the deceased at that time. P.W. 5/complainant has denied that he had a telephone call with the deceased on 20-05-2024. It is further submitted that in the present case, the charge has been framed and till 30-08-2025, a total of 12 witnesses have been examined, and the trial of the case is at its advanced stage. At this stage, further investigation in the case cannot be ordered. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has rightly considered the facts of the case and the provisions of Section 193 (9) of the BNSS and has dismissed the application, in which there 5 is no illegality, and the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material annexed with the petition. 7. The petitioner/accused has filed the present petition for a direction to the police authorities to further investigate the matter on the grounds that at the relevant point of time, on 20-05-2024, just before the incident, the complainant/father of the deceased had a telephone call and conversation with the deceased, which has been disclosed from the evidence of P.W. 12, Constable Kamta prasad Chauhan, who prove the CDR and CAF of the mobile phones seized in the case, however the complainant/father of the deceased denied that he had a telephone call with the deceased on 20-05-2024. From his statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, 2023, it reveals that he stated that on 20-05-2024, his children informed him about the incident when he was on his duty. P.W. 12, Kamta Prasad Chauhan, stated in his evidence that he was posted as a Constable at Police Station Jut Mill, and he has taken out a print of the CDR and CAF of the mobile phones seized in the case, by the e-mail ID of the police station, which was received from the cyber cell Raigarh, which is Ex. P-71 and the certificate of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is Ex. P-18. Thus, it transpires that the police have collected the evidence with respect to mobile call details of the mobile phones seized in the case, including the mobile phone of the deceased, and it cannot be said that the police have not investigated the mobile call details. The mobile call details and other electronic evidence are very much available in the case and part of the 6 charge sheet. The petitioner filed the application for further investigation to collect the conversation between the deceased and her father/complainant as to what was the conversation between them, which, in the opinion of this Court, may not be possible. The police authorities have investigated the matter from all angles of the case and filed the charge sheet. 8. The grounds raised by the petitioner for a direction to the police for further investigation in the matter are not sufficient to direct for further investigation in the matter when the charge sheet itself has been filed much before, the charge has been framed, and 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined in the trial. 9. In the matter of “Rampal Gautam and Others v. The State by Mahadevapura Police Station, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru & Others”, 2025 SCC Online SC 1231, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “12. At the outset, we may record that a direction to conduct further investigation even after filing of the charge sheet and commencement of the trial is permissible in law as has been held by a catena of judgments of this Court. Reference in this regard may be made to Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, wherein, this Court observed that the prime consideration for directing further investigation is to arrive at the truth and to do real substantial justice. The Court further observed that further investigation and reinvestigation stand altogether on a different footing. Even de hors any direction from the Court, it is open to the police to conduct a proper investigation notwithstanding the fact that the Court has already taken cognizance on the strength of a police report submitted earlier. However, a caveat was added that before directing such investigation, the Court or the concerned police officer has to apply mind to the material available on record and arrive at a satisfaction that investigation of such allegations is necessary for the just decision of the case. 7 14. Undeniably, the complainant had the liberty to set out her entire case/grievances in her examination-in- chief and make a prayer to the trial Court that the remaining family members who had been left out, should also be proceeded against by summoning them under Section 319 CrPC. If, at all, certain facts were left out from being narrated in the deposition of the complainant, an application under Section 311 CrPC could have been filed for recalling her and for conducting the further examination. In any event, there was no justification whatsoever for the High Court to have directed further investigation into the case at such a belated stage and that too, for the purpose of giving a handle to the complainant to improve upon her initial version so as to implicate her father-in-law, mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law, who were admittedly living separately whereas, the spouses, i.e., the complainant and her husband were residing together at Bangalore, where the alleged acts of cruelty took place.” 10. The judgment of Hansabhai Valibhai Qurashi (supra), cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rampal Gautam (supra), and the judgment of Anand Thanur Kurmuse (supra) is also in line with Hansabhai Valibhai Qurashi (supra). One more aspect has been considered in the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the power of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156 (3) and Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C., would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It has also been observed that the criminal trial commences only after charges are framed. In the present case, the charge was framed much before, and 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Therefore, no benefit could be extended to the petitioner from the cited judgments. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, material available in the charge sheet, also in view of the aforesaid law laid 8 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court does not find any sufficient ground to allow the petition and to direct the police authorities to further investigate into the matter and to file a supplementary charge sheet. 12. Accordingly, the present petition is liable to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved