Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. NARIMAN, SURYA KANT, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Gujarat and Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos.478-479 of 2017
Decided on : 16-10-2019
(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 2 r/w section 156 - ‘Investigation’, ‘enquiry’ and ‘trial’ - Investigation is conducted by police leading to a charge sheet - It can also be ordered by Magistrate in ‘complaint’ cases. (Para 13, 35)
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173(8) - Police empowered to continue investigation even after filing of police report - Until trial commences. (Para 19)
(c) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Wide power to Magistrate - Satisfaction of a proper investigation - Includes ordering of further investigation after receipt of a report u/s 173(2) - Until commencement of the trial. (Para 23)
(d) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3), 173(8) and 2(h) - When a Magistrate can order “such an investigation” during entire process, he may also order further investigation u/s 173(8). (Para 25)
(e) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 156(3) r/w Commissioner of Revenue, Gujarat letter dated 15.03.2011 - Further investigation - Facts alleged in application for further investigation in ten nature of cross FIR, never registered - Application not tenable - However, police directed to register FIR on the facts alleged in the application - Investigation to be made by some senior police officer nominated by Commissioner of Police. (Para 41, 42)
Facts of the case:
One Khushalbhai was the original tenant of agricultural land, bearing Revenue Survey No.342, admeasuring 2 Acres, 2 Gunthas, situated at Puna (Mauje), Choriyasi (Tal), District Surat. Khushalbhai died, after which his son Bhikhabhai became tenant in his place. Bhikhabhai in turn died on 23.12.1984 and his wife Bhikiben died on 18.12.1999. A public notice dated 07.06.2008 was issued in ‘Gujarat Mitra’ and ‘Gujarat Darpan Dainik’ by the heirs of Bhikhabhai, stating that Ramanbhai and Shankarbhai Patel are land-grabbers, and are attempting to create third-party rights in the said property. This led to the legal heirs of Bhikhabhai, through their Power-of-Attorney holder, applying on 12.06.2008 to the Collector, Nanpura (Surat), to cancel revenue entries that were made way back in 1976.
An FIR was lodged by one Nitinbhai Mangubhai Patel, Power-of-Attorney holder of Ramanbhai Bhagubhai Patel and Shankarbhai Bhagubhai Patel. Investigation was conducted and a charge-sheet was filed. The Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the accused regarding offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 511 IPC. The accused appeared before the said Magistrate. An application was filed by Accused No.1 Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC and another application for discharge. Likewise, applications for further investigation and for discharge were filed by accused 2 to 6. By an order dated 24.08.2011, the Magistrate dismissed the applications that were filed for further investigation. Likewise, the Magistrate also rejected the discharge applications.
The High Court in Criminal Revision Applications arrived at the conclusion that, as a matter of law, the Magistrate does not possess any power to order further investigation after a charge-sheet is filed and cognizance is taken.
Finding of the Court:
Application for further investigation is not tenable.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
The legal document discusses the scope and limits of a Magistrate's power to order further investigation after a charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken. It emphasizes that, generally, once cognizance is established and the trial has commenced, the Magistrate's authority to direct additional investigation is limited. The Magistrate's power to order further investigation is primarily exercisable before the charges are framed or the trial begins, and not after.
The document clarifies that the investigation process includes all proceedings for evidence collection conducted by police or authorized persons, and that this power remains until the trial actually begins, which is marked by the framing of charges. It also highlights that the power to order further investigation can be triggered either by the court or at the instance of the investigating agency, and that such power is wide and includes ordering supplementary or reinvestigation if justified by the circumstances.
Furthermore, the document underscores that the law permits the Magistrate to supervise and ensure a fair, unbiased, and complete investigation, which is fundamental to a fair trial and constitutional rights. It states that the Magistrate can, at any stage before the trial begins, direct the police to conduct further investigations if there are valid reasons to believe that the investigation was incomplete, tainted, or biased.
Importantly, the document also notes that post-cognizance, the Magistrate cannot suo motu order reinvestigation or further investigation once the accused has appeared and charges are framed, unless the investigation is initiated by the police or at the request of the investigating agency. The power to order further investigation after the trial has commenced is generally restricted, and such orders are typically made only at the request of the police or investigating agency, not suo motu by the Magistrate.
In conclusion, the document affirms that the law recognizes the Magistrate’s supervisory authority to ensure a proper investigation before the trial begins, but limits this authority once the trial process has formally started, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the integrity of the judicial process.
JUDGMENT :
R.F. Nariman, J.
1. This case arises out of a First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as “FIR”) that was lodged on 22.12.2009. The FIR is by one Nitinbhai Mangubhai Patel, Power-of-Attorney holder of Ramanbhai Bhagubhai Patel and Shankarbhai Bhagubhai Patel, who are allegedly residing at “UK or USA”. The gravamen of the complaint made in the FIR is that one Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya is blackmailing these two gentlemen with respect to agricultural land which is just outside the city of Surat, Gujarat and which admeasures about 8296 square meters. The FIR alleges that Ramanbhai Patel and Shankarbhai Patel are absolute and independent owners of this land, having obtained it from one Bhikhabhai Khushalbhai and his wife Bhikiben Bhikhabhai in the year 1975. The FIR then narrates that because of a recent price-hike of lands in the city of Surat, the heirs of Bhikhabhai and Bhikiben together with Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Manubhai Kurjibhai Malaviya have hatched a conspiracy in collusion with each other, and published a public notice under the caption “Beware of Land-grabbers” in a local newspaper on 07.06.2008. Sometime thereafter, Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya then contacted an intermediary, who in turn contacted Nitinbhai Patel (who lodged the FIR), whereby, according to Nitinbhai Patel, Vinubhai Malaviya demanded an amount of Rs. 2.5 crores in order to “settle” disputes in respect of this land. It is alleged in the said FIR that apart from attempting to extort money from the said Nitinbhai Patel, the heirs of Bhikhabhai and Bhikiben together with Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Manubhai Kurjibhai Malaviya have used a fake and bogus ‘Satakhat’ and Power-of-Attorney in respect of the said land, and had tried to grab this land from its lawful owners Ramanbhai and Shankarbhai Patel.
2. The background to the FIR is the fact that one Khushalbhai was the original tenant of agricultural land, bearing Revenue Survey No.342, admeasuring 2 Acres, 2 Gunthas, situated at Puna (Mauje), Choriyasi (Tal), District Surat. Khushalbhai died, after which his son Bhikhabhai became tenant in his place. Bhikhabhai in turn died on 23.12.1984 and his wife Bhikiben died on 18.12.1999. A public notice dated 07.06.2008 was issued in ‘Gujarat Mitra’ and ‘Gujarat Darpan Dainik’ by the heirs of Bhikhabhai, stating that Ramanbhai and Shankarbhai Patel are land-grabbers, and are attempting to create third-party rights in the said property. This led to the legal heirs of Bhikhabhai, through their Power-of-Attorney holder, applying on 12.06.2008 to the Collector, Nanpura (Surat), to cancel revenue entries that were made way back in 1976.
3. Pursuant to the filing of the FIR, investigation was conducted by the police, which resulted in a charge-sheet dated 22.04.2010 being submitted to the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Surat. On 23.04.2010, the said Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the accused regarding offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”). Pursuant to the summons, the accused appeared before the said Magistrate. On 10.06.2011, an application (Exhibit 28) was filed by Accused No.1 Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) and another application (Exhibit 29) for discharge. Likewise, on 14.06.2011, applications for further investigation (Exhibit 31) and for discharge (Exhibit 32) were filed by accused 2 to 6. By an order dated 24.08.2011, the Magistrate dismissed the applications that were filed for further investigation (i.e. Exhibits 28 and 31), stating that the facts sought to be placed by the applicants were in the nature of evidence of the defence that would be taken in the trial. Likewise, on 21.10.2011 the learned Magistrate also rejected the discharge applications that were made (i.e. Exhibits 29 and 32).
4. Meanwhile, on 26.0
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
