Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, AMITAVA ROY, JJ.
AMRUTBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI PATEL – APPELLANT
VERSUS
SUMANBHAI KANTIBHAI PATEL & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1171 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (CRIMINAL) NO.3338 OF 2015)
Decided On : 02-02-2017
(1997)1 SCC 361; (1985) 2 SCC 537 – Relied upon
(1979) 2 SCC 322; AIR 1945 PC18; AIR 1968 SC 117; (2004) 5 SCC 347; (2009) 9 SCC 129; (1977) 4 SCC 459; (1976) 3 SCC 252; AIR 1962 SC 1208; AIR 1966 SC 1047; (2007) 8 SCC 770; (2013) 5 SCC 762; (2012) 9 SCC 460; (2011) 9 SCC 182; (2006) 4 SCC 359; (2001) 7 SCC 536; (2015) 8 SCC 774 – Referred
Facts of the case:
The appellant had lodged a FIR against the respondents under Sections 406, 420, 426, 467, 468, 471, 477B and 120B IPC. There was a dispute between the parties relating to agricultural land and that the appellant/informant had alleged forgery of the signatures and thumb impression of his as well as of his family members in the register maintained by the Notary (Public).
An application was filed at the culminating stages of the trial by the appellant/informant seeking a direction under Section 173(8) from the Trial Court for further investigation by the police and in particular to call for a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory as regards one particular page of the register of the Notary (Public), which according to the appellant/informant was of debatable authenticity, as it appeared to have been affixed/pasted with another page thereof. This application was filed at a stage when the case was fixed for final arguments.
The Trial Court granted the prayer made and issued a direction to the police for further investigation.
The High Court interfered with the order of the Magistrate permitting further investigation by the police in the case and ordered for expeditious disposal of the trial.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rejected the petition for further investigation at the instance of the informant.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
A Magistrate cannot order further investigation suo motu or based on an application by the informant after the court has already taken cognizance of the case, process has been issued, and the accused has entered appearance or the trial has commenced (!) (!) .
The power to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code is vested solely with the investigating agency, not with the Magistrate, once the initial investigation has been completed, a report has been submitted, and the case has moved to the trial stage (!) (!) .
The law permits the investigating agency to undertake further investigation and submit a supplementary report if new evidence emerges, but this process is initiated by the police, not by the court or the complainant/informant, after the case is already in progress (!) (!) .
The Magistrate's role is limited to taking cognizance, issuing process, and, at most, directing investigation at pre-cognizance stages or when the case is at a preliminary inquiry stage. After the accused has appeared and the trial has begun, the Magistrate cannot suo motu or on application direct further investigation (!) (!) .
The authority to order re-investigation or further investigation after the case has moved into the trial phase is confined to the investigating agency, and such orders cannot be issued by the Magistrate without the agency's request, except in exceptional circumstances (!) (!) .
The procedural provisions and amendments reflect a clear legislative intent that further investigation is to be undertaken only at the request of the investigating agency, not automatically or at the discretion of the court once proceedings are underway (!) (!) .
The power of the Magistrate to summon witnesses or examine persons at any stage remains, but this does not extend to ordering or directing further investigation without the police’s request (!) (!) .
Any attempt by the court to direct suo motu investigation after the commencement of trial proceedings would be incompatible with the statutory framework and could lead to procedural inconsistencies (!) (!) .
Delay or inaction on the part of the complainant/informant in requesting further investigation at a late stage does not warrant the court to bypass the statutory limitations and order such investigation suo motu (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal framework emphasizes that further investigation after the case has entered the trial stage is primarily the responsibility of the investigating agency, and courts should refrain from issuing such directions unless explicitly authorized or requested in accordance with the law (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this document.
JUDGMENT
AMITAVA ROY, J.
The assail is of the verdict dated 10.04.2015 rendered by the High Court, setting at naught the order dated 27.5.2014 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gandhinagar, whereby the Trial Court had allowed the application filed by the appellant, the original informant, under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Code/1973 Code") for further investigation by the police.
2. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned senior counsel for the appellant and M/s. Zakir Hussain, Nitya Ramakrishan, and Shamik Sanjanwala, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
3. The facts indispensable for the present adjudication, portray that the appellant had lodged a First Information Report (for short hereafter referred to as "FIR") against the respondents under Sections 406, 420, 426, 467, 468, 471, 477B and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short also referred to as "IPC"). The materials offered in the FIR and the investigation by the police that followed, divulged that there was a dispute between the parties relating to agricultural land and that the appellant/informant had alleged forgery of the signatures and thumb impression of his as well as of his family members in the register maintained by the Notary (Public). After the charge-sheet was submitted, charge was framed against the respondents and they stood the trial accordingly, as they denied the imputations. As would be gleanable from the records, the oral evidence of the appellant/first informant was concluded on 03.07.2012 followed by that of the investigating officer of the case on 10.09.2013. Subsequent thereto, the statements of the respondents were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC on 03.12.2013, whereafter an application was filed at the culminating stages of the trial by the appellant/informant seeking a direction under Section 173(8) from the Trial Court for further investigation by the police and in particular to call for a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory as regards one particular page of the register of the Notary (Public), which according to the appellant/informant was of debatable authenticity, as it appeared to have been affixed/pasted with another page thereof. To be precise, this application was filed at a stage when the case was fixed for final arguments.
4. The Trial Court, however, by the order impeached before the High Court granted the prayer made and issued a direction to the police for further investigation. Significantly, prior thereto in Special Leave Petition being SLP (Crl.) No.9106 of 2010, this Court had directed expeditious disposal of the trial. It is also worthwhile to record that the application filed by the appellant/informant under Section 173(8) of Cr.PC had been opposed by the respondents herein, who being dissatisfied with the order of the Trial Court, thus impugned the same before the High Court.
5. The High Court, as the impugned decision would disclose exhaustively examined the purport of Section 173(8) in the particular context of the scope of further investigation by the police after it had submitted a charge sheet and the Trial Court had taken cognizance on the basis thereof and had proceeded with the trial, following the appearance of the accused persons. It, amongst others took note of the 41st Report of the Law Commission of India which after reflecting on the oftly adopted view of the Courts that once a final report under Section 173 had been submitted by the police, the latter could not touch the case again and reopen the investigation, recommended that it ought to be made clear that under the said provision of the Code, it was still permissible for the police to examine any evidence even after the submission of the charge-sheet and to submit a report to the Magistrate. Thus, the Law Commission's emphasis was to obviate any hindrance in the way of the investigating agency, which in certain fact situations could be unfair to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
