Back
RAJESH BINDAL, VIJAY BISHNOI
Pramod Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
The commission of the offence involves the act of falsely implicating the accused in a serious crime, such as rape, based on allegations that are later found to lack supporting evidence. In this case, the initial investigation concluded with a final report indicating that there was no sufficient evidence to support the allegations, and the court accepted this report after proper notices to the complainant, who did not object or protest (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Subsequently, the authorities attempted to re-investigate the case by conducting further investigations, including DNA testing, without obtaining prior approval from the court, despite the fact that the final report had been accepted and the case was pending judicial proceedings (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The unlawful act of conducting further investigation without judicial permission, especially after the case had been closed and the final report accepted, constitutes a breach of legal procedure and undermines the judicial process. This act can be considered an abuse of authority and a violation of the legal rights of the accused, as the authority to order such further investigation rests solely with the court, and the police or investigation agencies acted beyond their legal jurisdiction in this context (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
VIJAY BISHNOI, J.
Leave Granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellants challenging the Judgment dated 20.11.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4000 of 2022 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”). The writ petition filed by the Appellants was dismissed by the High Court, wherein it refused to quash the Orders dated 06.06.2019 and 26.04.2021 passed by the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 4, respectively.
3. The sole question that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether after submitting a final report under Section 173(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short “CrPC”) (also refer to Section 193(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”)), the police/investigating agency can conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of CrPC (also refer to Section 193(9) of BNSS) without obtaining the leave of the Magistrate/ Court concerned?
FACTUAL MATRIX
4. A fascicule of facts pertinent for the disposal of this appeal are that, on 19.11.2013, an FIR bearing Case Crime No. 70/2013 (hereina
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. There are no keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or "overruled" in the provided summaries that suggest any of these cases have been invalidated or discredited by subsequent rulings. Therefore, based solely on the information provided, no case is identified as bad law.
[Followed or consistent treatment]
Case Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya VS State of Gujarat - 2019 8 Supreme 523: This case affirms that a Magistrate can order “such an investigation” u/s 156(3) during the entire process and may also order further investigation u/s 173(8) till the commencement of the trial. The language suggests a clear interpretation of the Magistrate's powers, which appears to be accepted and applied in subsequent contexts. No indication of disagreement or disapproval is present, implying it is treated as good law.
Case Peethambaran VS State Of Kerala - 2023 4 Supreme 261: This case states that a Magistrate has the power to order further investigation, and explicitly notes that the Chief Police Officer of a district does not have this power. The statement is definitive and likely aligns with other judicial interpretations of investigative powers, indicating a consistent and accepted stance.
Case Dharam Pal VS State of Haryana - 2016 1 Supreme 702: This case emphasizes that the stage of the case or the commencement of a trial cannot prevent constitutional courts from directing investigation by CBI, highlighting the importance of justice for the victim. The language suggests a strong judicial stance supporting the courts' powers, which is likely followed in subsequent jurisprudence.
None of the cases exhibit ambiguous or unclear treatment based on the provided summaries. Each case includes definitive language regarding judicial powers and procedures, with no indication that their legal standing is questioned or uncertain.
Further investigation – Police ought to follow procedure of seeking permission from Court to conduct “further investigation” and file supplementary chargesheet – Power to direct further investigation....
The accused has no right to seek further investigation after a charge sheet is filed, and discrepancies in evidence are to be resolved at trial.
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 Magistrate cannot treat a case as a complaint after taking cognizance based on a charge-sheet; further investigation rights lie with the police.
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 Magistrate cannot retroactively classify a case as a complaint after taking cognizance based on an investigation report, as further investigations are solely under the police's purview without re....
(1) Further investigation – Mere fact that there may be further delay in concluding trial should not stand in way of further investigation if that would help court in arriving at truth and do real an....
The accused do not possess the right to request further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C., as this power is reserved for the investigating agency and the court, ensuring that the inve....
The magistrate has no power to order further investigation suo motu or on the request of the complainant/informant after cognizance is taken and the accused person appears, nor does the magistrate ha....
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
