SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(SC) 431

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Bohatie Devi (Dead) Through LR - Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1294 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl) No. 4394 of 2021) With Criminal Appeal No. 1295 of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl) No. 7708 of 2021)
Decided On : 28-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harikesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Satyendra Kumar, AOR Mr. S Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv. Mr. R Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, A.A.G. Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Sidharth Sengar, Adv. Ms. Deepeika Kalia, Adv. Mr. Atul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arun Gaur, Adv. Ms. Deepali, Adv. Mr. Tarun Gupta, AOR Mr. S Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv. Mr. R Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR

IMPORTANT POINT
Secretary (Home) cannot pass order for further investigation by CBCID.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 173(8) read with Section 158 – Further investigation – Murder case – Even after charge-sheet is filed, it is right of investigating officer to further investigate in respect of offence even after a report under sub-section (2) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. is forwarded to a Magistrate – Prior approval of Magistrate is not required – However, so far as reinvestigation is concerned, prior permission/approval of Magistrate is required – In present case, Secretary (Home) has passed order for further investigation by CBCID and thereafter, CBCID has sent intimation to Magistrate – No prior approval/permission has been accorded by Magistrate – What is on record is only an intimation to Magistrate which in any case cannot be said to be concurrence of Magistrate – As it is a case of reinvestigation, same is not permissible and that too by another agency without prior permission of Magistrate even while exercising powers under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. – Section 173(3) read with Section 158 does not permit Secretary (Home) to order for further investigation/reinvestigation by another agency, other than officer in charge of concerned Police Station and/or his superior officer – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 7.1,7.2, 7.3 and 8)

Facts of the case:

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned judgment and order passed by High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7093/2019, by which High Court has dismissed the writ petition preferred by appellant herein – mother of deceased in which appellant challenged order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Secretary (Home), State of UP, Lucknow, whereby he ordered for further investigation by CBCID of Case Crime No. 1069/2014, original writ petitioner has preferred present appeal.

Findings of Court:

High Court in impugned judgment and order has observed that further investigation is ordered with concurrence of the Magistrate, which is factually incorrect. Impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, order dated 13.02.2019 passed by Secretary (Home) impugned before High Court by which Secretary (Home), State of U.P., Lucknow ordered for reinvestigation by CBCID of Case Crime No. 1069/2014 under Sections 302 and 120B of IPC, hereby quashed and set aside.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7093/2019, by which, the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant herein – mother of the deceased – Satyveer alias Kallu, in which, the appellant challenged order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the Secretary (Home), State of UP, Lucknow, whereby he ordered for further investigation by CBCID of Case Crime No. 1069/2014, the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal.

2. The facts leading to the present appeal in a nutshell are as under: -

2.1 That son of the appellant – Satyaveer @ Kallu was murdered by un-known persons. An FIR was lodged by the informant Sanjeev son-in-law of the appellant against Smt. Anju and two un-known persons. The investigation was carried out by the Inspector of Police, Baraut, District Baghpat who submitted chargesheet on 01.03.2015 against two persons of which cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate on 31.03.2015. That thereafter, on the complaint/application by the appellant, the investigation was handed over to the District Crime Branch. A supplementary chargesheet was filed on 02.12.2016 against one Ashwani Kumar – respondent No. 8 herein (son of respondent No. 9 herein) and Smt. Anju -respondent No. 11 herein. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same on 21.12.2016. That thereafter, respondent No. 8, namely, Ashwani Kumar filed the quashing petition before the High Court for quashing of the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 7626/2016 originating out of Case Crime No. 1069/2014 as well as for quashing of the chargesheet dated 02.12.2016. The said application came to be dismissed by the High Court on 05.07.2017. Being aggrieved of order dated 05.07.2017, respondent No. 8 – Ashwani Kumar approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 599/2017 which was dismissed by this Court on 24.08.2018. This Court also vacated the interim protection granted to respondent No. 8 vide order dated 15.09.2017. The learned CJM, Baghpat issued non-bailable warrant against respondent No. 8 vide order dated 08.09.2018. That thereafter and after non-bailable warrant was issued against respondent No. 8 herein, mother of Ashwani Kumar – accused moved an application dated 23.01.2019 to the Secretary (Home), State of Uttar Pradesh for transferring the investigation to CBCID, inter-alia, on the ground that respondent No. 8 has been arraigned as accused on the basis of statements of two witnesses who in fact were in the Jail and therefore, their statements cannot be believed. That by order dated 13.02.2019, Secretary (Home) State of U.P., Lucknow, ordered further investigation by CBCID. The order passed by the Secretary (Home) transferring investigation to CBCID was impugned before the High Court by way of present petition. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has dismissed the writ petition by observing that further investigation was ordered after intimation to the learned Magistrate and therefore, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Secretary (Home) directing further investigation. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is the subject matter of present appeal.

3. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant and Shri S. Nagamuthu and Shri Rameshwar Singh Malik, learned Senior Advocates have appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 8 and 11. Shri Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the intervenor.

4. Ms. Makhija, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that the order passed by the Secretary (Home) transferring the investigation to CBCID is absolutely illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC).

4.1 It is submitted that in the present case after thorough investigation by the investigating a


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top