Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.
Athul Rao – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1367 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.987 of 2015)
Decided On : 18-08-2017
(2017) 4 SCC 177 – Relied upon
(2001) 6 SCC 181; ILR 2008 Kar. 3697 – Referred
(b) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – High Court giving liberty to respondent to apply to trial court for further investigation – Does not constitute a direction to trial court to order further investigation – Trial court considering all aspects and rejecting application for further investigation – No error. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
On or around 11th June, 2008, the wife of respondent no.2, one Padmapriya, went missing from her marital home in Udupi, Karnataka. The police finally traced Padmapriya to a flat in Dwarka, New Delhi on or around 14th June, 2008. Thereafter, respondent no.2, along with some family members went to New Delhi and, with the police in tow, visited the said flat on 15th June, 2008. As the door of the flat was found to be locked, the same was broken open, whence Padmapriya's body was found hanging inside.
A charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant before the Trial Court for offence punishable under Sections 417, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. Pursuant thereto charges have been framed by the Trial Court against the appellant. However, no charge has been framed against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 497, 498 and 306 of IPC, in relation to the actual death of Padmapriya.
Respondent no.2 filed a private complaint with regard to the same incident alleging that the appellant was liable to be tried for offence punishable under Sections 497, 498 and 306 of IPC. The Magistrate ordered an investigation by the local police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in respect of this complaint.
The appellant moved the High Court of Karnataka, which ultimately quashed the private complaint filed by respondent no.2 but granted liberty to respondent no.2 to apply to the Trial Court in the already instituted criminal case against the appellant in relation to the same incident for further investigation and for framing charges under Sections 497, 498 and 306 of IPC.
Accordingly, respondent no.2 moved an application before the Trial Court for further investigation into the offences under Sections 497, 498 and 306 of IPC which was rejected.
The High Court allowed the petition thereagainst filed by respondent 2. The High Court took the view that rejecting the application of respondent no.2 for further investigation would run counter to the intent and object of the liberty granted by the High Court on the earlier occasion.
Finding of the court:
Impugned judgment is not sustainable.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - A Magistrate cannot, suo motu or on an application by the complainant/informant, direct further investigation after cognizance is taken and charges are framed (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The power to order further investigation under Section 173(8) vests exclusively in the investigating agency/officer, not the Magistrate (!) (!) . - A High Court cannot direct further investigation merely because liberty was earlier granted; such direction must be based on necessity shown in the factual context (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The trial court is required to consider all relevant aspects, including completed investigation and charges already framed, before deciding on an application for further investigation (!) (!) . - The amendment to Section 173(8) was intended to empower the investigating agency alone, not the Magistrate, and does not authorize retrospective direction for further investigation (!) . - The satisfaction of the trial court rejecting further investigation, supported by reasons, is not overrideable by the High Court on the sole ground of earlier liberty (!) (!) (!) . - Any liberty granted by a High Court to approach the trial court relates only to making an application; it does not constitute a direction to order further investigation [Important Points (b)] (!) . - The case must be concluded expeditiously by the trial court following the Supreme Court’s direction (!) .
JUDGMENT
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
The appellant has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 417, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. The case against the appellant is that on or around 11th June, 2008, the wife of respondent no.2, one Padmapriya, went missing from her marital home in Udupi, Karnataka. That was reported to the local police by Smt. Saraswathi (Mother of respondent no. 2), as a result of which a case was registered as Crime No.109/2008 on 13th June 2008. The police finally traced Padmapriya to a flat in Dwarka, New Delhi on or around 14th June, 2008. Thereafter, respondent no.2, along with some family members went to New Delhi and, with the police in tow, visited the said flat on 15th June, 2008, with the intention of bringing Padmapriya back home. As the door of the flat was found to be locked, the same was broken open, whence Padmapriya's body was found hanging inside. After investigation, the police concluded that the appellant and Padmapriya had grown close and that the appellant had convinced Padmapriya to leave her husband, respondent no.2, and live with him. The appellant allegedly concealed that he had taken Padmapriya from her marital home and shifted her to New Delhi, where he had rented out the aforesaid flat at Dwarka in which Padmapriya was subsequently found hanging. The investigation also revealed that the appellant had procured several official documents, including the rent agreement for the aforesaid flat, based on fraudulent information and false representations that Padmapriya was his lawfully wedded wife. In that regard, a charge-sheet and supplementary charge-sheet came to be filed against the appellant before the Trial Court, on 20th August, 2008 and 16th July, 2009, respectively, for offence punishable under Sections 417, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. Pursuant thereto charges have been framed by the Trial Court against the appellant. However, no charge has been framed against the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 497, 498 and 306 of IPC, in relation to the actual death of Padmapriya.
2. Pending the aforementioned criminal trial, respondent no.2 filed a private complaint before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.) & JMFC at Udupi with regard to the same incident, being PCR No. 21 of 2009, alleging that the appellant was liable to be tried for offence punishable under Sections 497, 498 and 306 of IPC. The Magistrate ordered an investigation by the local police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in respect of this complaint. Aggrieved, the appellant moved the High Court of Karnataka, which ultimately quashed the private complaint filed by respondent no.2 vide its judgment dated 21st October, 2013, but granted liberty to respondent no.2 to apply to the Trial Court in the already instituted criminal case against the appellant in relation to the same incident (i.e. Crime No.109/2008), for further investigation and for framing charges under Sections 497, 498 and 306 of IPC. The High Court relied on the decision of this Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and others, (2001) 6 SCC 181 which has expounded that, regardless of the sweeping power of investigation vested in the police, it does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs, whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. Such an exercise would be clearly beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 of Cr.P.C. nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of the investigation in a given case. The Court went on to observe that in case of a fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR, either investigation is underway or final repor
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
