@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2015 passed by the VI Addl. C.M.M Court, Bangalore, whereby, the learned Magistrate has directed further investigation under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that, Mr. Fahed Ahmed, the defacto complainant was married to Ms. Mariam Fasihuddin, petitioner No. 1 on 02.08.2007 at Chandrodaya Convention Hall, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore. During the marriage, a son, Faisal, was born on 02.06.2008. According to the complainant, complainant was working in the United Kingdom, in a Software Company. He left for England on 13.07.2008 for the purpose of renewing his Visa. At the relevant time, the accused, petitioner No. 1 was staying with her father along with the son. The petitioner No. 1 wanted her husband to obtain a letter from the High Commissioner of India at London in order to obtain a Passport for their son, Faisal. However, due to Visa constraint, the complainant could not obtain any letter from the High Commissioner in England at London. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have obtained the passport for Faisal. He further came to know that in the passport application submitted by petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2, the complainant''s signatures have been forged. Therefore, on 13.05.2010, the complainant filed a first information report against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 r/w 34, IPC. After completing the investigation, while the police filed a charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34, IPC, it did not file any charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471, IPC. Therefore, the complainant filed an application under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate and prayed for further investigation for offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. By order dated 24.06.2015, the said application has been accepted, and further investigation has been ordered. Hence, this petition before this court.
3. Mr. M.G.S. Kamal, the learned counsel for petitioner, has vehemently contended that, when the investigation officer had sent a request to the Passport Office for seeking the original application as submitted by petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, he was duly informed that the original application has been weeded out and only a scanned copy has been sent to the investigation officer. According to the learned counsel, the issue whether the signature on the said application has been forged or not, cannot be decided on the basis of a scanned copy. Therefore, to order for further investigation for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471, IPC is a futile exercise. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, the learned counsel for respondent No. 3, the complainant, has submitted that the investigation officer has not even bothered to, investigate whether the complainant was present in India on the day when the application was duly submitted or not? Moreover, whether a finding with regard to genuineness of the signature can be given or not, and what would be the evidentiary value of the expert opinion is a matter for the trial court to consider. This court, at this stage, should not interfere with the further investigation as the allegations are for serious offences under Sections 468 and 471, IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.
5. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned order.
6. In catena of cases, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that undoubtedly the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is vast one. However, the more expansive the power, the more sparingly it should be used. The inherent power of this court cannot be utilised for interfering with the investigation especially, when the allegations relate to serious offences.
7. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Magistrate has clearly observed that there are no cogent reasons given by the police for dropping the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC, from the charge-sheet. Moreover, the investigation officer has not even bothered to investigate whether the complainant was available in India or not, at the relevant time. Furthermore, the investigation officer was required to take the admitted signatures of the complainant and to send the scanned copy to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its opinion. Yet, for reasons best known to the investigation officer, he has failed to take necessary steps for investigating of offences under Sections 468 and 471, IPC. Obviously, the learned court has given cogent reasons for directing further investigation under Section 173 (8), Cr.P.C. Since the purpose of investigation is to discover the truth and to book the alleged culprit, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
8. Therefore, this petition is devoid of merit. It is, hereby, dismissed.
