Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Devendra Nath Singh – Appellants
Versus
State Of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1768 of 2022 (Arising Out Of SLP (Crl.) No. 9609 of 2022 @ Diary No. 22814 of 2019)
Decided on : 12-10-2022
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 173(8), 156(3) and 482 – Further investigation – Scheme of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to ensure a fair trial and that would commence only after a fair and just investigation – Ultimate aim of every investigation and inquiry, whether by police or by Magistrate, is to ensure that actual perpetrators of crime are correctly booked and innocents are not arraigned to stand trial – Powers of Magistrate to ensure proper investigation in terms of Section 156, Cr.P.C. have been recognised, which, in turn, include power to order further investigation in terms of Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. after receiving report of investigation – Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within discretion of Magistrate which is to be exercised on facts of each case and in accordance with law – Even when basic power to direct further investigation in a case where a charge-sheet has been filed is with the Magistrate and is to be exercised subject to limitations of Section 173(8), Cr.P.C., in an appropriate case, where High Court feels that investigation is not in proper direction and to do complete justice where facts of case so demand, inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be exercised to direct further investigation or even reinvestigation. (Para 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 482 and 173(8) – Power to order further investigation – Provisions of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. do not limit or affect such powers of High Court to pass order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for further investigation or reinvestigation, if High Court is satisfied that such a course is necessary to secure ends of justice – Even when wide powers of High Court in terms of Section, 482 Cr.P.C. are recognised for ordering further investigation or reinvestigation, such powers are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and in exceptional cases – Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not unlimited or untrammelled and are essentially for purpose of real and substantial justice – While exercising such powers, High Court cannot issue directions so as to be impinging upon power and jurisdiction of other authorities – It cannot issue directions to investigate case only from a particular angle – In exercise of such inherent powers in extraordinary circumstances, High Court cannot specifically direct that as a result of further investigation or reinvestigation, a particular person has to be prosecuted. (Para 13)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173(8) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 409, 467, 468 and 420 – Further investigation – Affording opportunity of hearing – Question of opportunity of hearing in such matters would always depend upon given set of facts and circumstances of case – Even if appellant had been exonerated in departmental proceedings, such a fact by itself, may not be conclusive of criminal investigation; and for this fact alone, High Court could not have ignored all other features of case and material factors that had surfaced before it – In this case, investigation contemplated by order impugned should be allowed to be taken to its logical end but, while effacing unwarranted and unnecessary observations of High Court. (Paras 18, 19.1 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Two principal questions arise for determination in this appeal: one, as to whether the High Court, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., was justified in issuing directions to the Magistrate to order further investigation though, Magistrate before whom charge-sheet had been filed and who had taken cognizance, did not adopt any such process; and second, as to whether the High Court was justified in passing the order impugned without affording an opportunity of hearing to appellant?
Findings of Court:
Present one had been such a case of exceptional and special features where the High Court was justified in ordering further investigation, particularly qua the role of the appellant. Thus, principal part of order impugned, directing further investigation, calls for no interference.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 10.09.2018, as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 649 of 2016.
2.1. The said petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731[‘CrPC’, for short.] was filed by respondent No. 3 of the present appeal, against the order dated 21.06.2014, as passed by the ACJM, Barh, District Patna2[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Magistrate’.] in Barh Police Station Case No. 115 of 2012 whereby, the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603[‘IPC’, for short.] on the allegations against the respondent No. 3 of misappropriation of stocks worth Rs. 16,99,648/-from the godown of the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation4[Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’.] during the years 2010-11 and 2011-12.
3. The main plank of the submissions before the High Court in the aforesaid petition by the respondent No. 3 had been that he was only a Class IV employee of the Corporation and that the ‘entire game was played’ by the present appellant, who was holding the position of the District Manager. In that regard, the contents of audit report forming part of the First Information Report5[‘FIR’, for short.] were extensively relied upon.
4. The High Court, after taking note of the submissions made on behalf of the present respondent No. 3, expressed surprise that the then District Manager of the Corporation (i.e., the present appellant), who was ultimately responsible for the illegalities, was given a clean chit by the informant, i.e., the Senior Dy. Collector-cum-District Manager (in-charge of the godown). It was also observed that the present respondent No. 3, a Class IV employee, could not have been posted at the godown; and that he was made an accused in the case ‘as scapegoat to save the skin’ of the present appellant.
4.1. Having said so, the High Court proceeded to direct the Magistrate to give directions to the police to further investigate the case in terms of Section 173(8) CrPC regarding the allegations against the appellant and to seek the report within a period of three months. The Court, however, expressed its disinclination to interfere with the impugned order taking cognizance against the present respondent No. 3 and disposed of the petition while giving liberty to the respondent No. 3 to raise all the points at the time of framing the charge which, as per the directions of the High Court, were to be decided by the learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the material emerging in further investigation against the appellant.
5. The impugned order dated 10.09.2018 could be usefully reproduced, in extenso, as under: -
“This petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.6.2014 passed by the A.C.J.M. Barh, Patna in Barh P.S. case no. 115 of 2012 by which learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 409,467, 468 and 420 of the I.P.C. against the petitioner.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner was only a class IV employee in the Bihar State Food and Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. for short ‘the Corporation”. The entire game was played by D.N Singh who was District Manager which has also come in the Audit Report which is part of the FIR and annexed as Annexure-2. The informant who was Senior Dy. Collector-cum-District Manager (Incharge) of the Godown has not lodged any case against said D.N.Singh the then District Manager who had played entire game in committing misappropriation. The F.I.R. has been lodged only against the petitioner who was class IV employee and was made In-charge of the Godown by D.N. Singh against the Circular and Government policy, which had also come in detail in Audit Report submitted by the Auditor. The police submitte
Further investigation – Provisions of Section 173(8), Cr.P.C. do not limit or affect such powers of High Court to pass order under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for further investigation or reinvestigation, i....
The Court emphasized the wide powers of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of an FIR, direct proper investigation, and monitor the same. It also highlighted the need for ....
The court emphasized that further investigation must be justified by new evidence or deficiencies in the prior investigation, and the discretion to order it lies with the Magistrate based on case fac....
The court affirmed that magistrates cannot order further investigations post-cognizance without evidence of malafide, upholding the legitimacy of the charge sheet filed under Section 498A.
The Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to transfer the investigation from one agency to another, including to the CBI, if the facts so warrant, but the same should be done in some ra....
The High Court should refrain from direct interference in police investigations and encourage petitioners to seek redress through formal statutory remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code.
Further investigation – Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within discretion of Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on facts of each case and in accordance with....
The distinction between 'further investigation' and 're-investigation' is critical; only higher courts can authorize re-investigation, while magistrates can direct further investigations within defin....
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
