Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J.
V. Siva Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana rep. by its Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 6132 of 2015
Decided on : 24-07-2015
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 324, 354, 379, 427, 448, 506, 509 read with 34 – Quash of Criminal proceedings – Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/defacto-complainant under Section 482 to set aside the order which was the outcome of Crime No.24 of 2014 registered at the instance of the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 354, 379, 427, 448, 506, 509 read with 34 I Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State represented by the Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. The police after investigation filed final report showing 18 accused persons final report is besides the sections for which crime registered supra included Section 354-A also besides 379, 455, 395 read with 34 I.P.C learned Magistrate taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 324, 354, 354A, 506, 509, 427, 379, 455 and 395 read with 34 I.P.C and issued summons to A-1 to A-16 and 19 as A-17 and A-18 are shown in the final report and in the final report mentioned at column No.12 that there is no material to charge the said absconding accused A-17 and A-18. It is the case committed to the Court of Session as P.R.C. No.24 of 2014 under Section 209 against A-1 to A-16 and A-19. learned Sessions Judge taken cognizance under Section 193 for the said offences supra and the case while coming for hearing before charges, the de facto-complainant filed the petition under Section 173(8) Crl.P.No.113 of 2015 alleging that all the culprits reflected in the video not arrayed as accused and some of the property not even recovered Inspector of Police who registered the crime and investigated, filed counter opposing the petition by denying the allegations saying that there are no grounds to make further investigation as sought for. Pursuant to it, the learned Magistrate passed the order as follows –Held, A perusal of the expression, particularly at are clear that for re-investigation or investigation or fresh investigation orders of Court are necessary. Now, coming to further investigation and power of Court to pass orders concerned, it is also answered in the expression that besides the power of the police to investigate further under Section 173(8), the Court of Magistrate has a clear power to direct further investigation even after the police final report under Section 173(2) From combined reading of Section 173(8) read with Section 156 in particular Section 156(1) learned Magistrate did not go through these aspects in so observing and the police also did not advert to this as to why further investigation is not necessary no substance to accept the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor of which to reinvestigation, as the petitioner no way seeks the existing investigation to be interfered but for saying those persons not arrayed that are covered by video footage the complicity of them also to be investigated further. It is practically a further investigation within the scope of Section 173(8) Having regard to the above, the order of the lower Court is unsustainable. Accordingly the petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 04.02.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.113 of 2015 passed by the learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, with a direction that the petitioner to supply a fresh, the video footage since it is not even covered by earlier final report material and the police pursuant to which conduct further investigation in relation to those persons covered by the video coverage; besides that was already investigated against A-1 to A-19; and if there is any complicity of any others, the police shall file further final report in the form of charge sheet under Section 173 Cr.P.C or else if no material file final report in the form of referred report – criminal petition shall stand closed
1. This Criminal Petition is filed by the Petitioner/defacto-complainant under Section 482 Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 04.02.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.113 of 2015 in P.R.C. No.24 of 2014 on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad which was the outcome of Crime No.24 of 2014 registered at the instance of the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 354, 379, 427, 448, 506, 509 read with 34 I.P.C.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-State represented by the Public Prosecutor and perused the material on record. The police after investigation filed final report showing 18 accused persons. The final report is besides the sections for which crime registered supra included Section 354-A also besides 379, 455, 395 read with 34 I.P.C. The learned Magistrate taken cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 324, 354, 354A, 506, 509, 427, 379, 455 and 395 read with 34 I.P.C and issued summons to A-1 to A-16 and 19 as A-17 and A-18 are shown in abscondence in the final report and in the final report mentioned at column No.12 that there is no material to charge the said absconding accused A-17 and A-18. It is the case committed to the Court of Session as P.R.C. No.24 of 2014 under Section 209 Cr.P.C against A-1 to A-16 and A-19. The learned Sessions Judge taken cognizance under Section 193 Cr.P.C for the said offences supra and the case while coming for hearing before charges, the defacto-complainant filed the petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C in Crl.P.No.113 of 2015 alleging that all the culprits reflected in the video not arrayed as accused and some of the property not even recovered. The Inspector of Police, Ramgopalpet who registered the crime and investigated, filed counter opposing the petition by denying the allegations saying that there are no grounds to make further investigation as sought for. Pursuant to it, the learned Magistrate passed the order as follows:
“Even if assuming for a moment that certain documents were not filed by investigating officer prosecution is at liberty to file the same during the course of trial. Law does not prohibit either the prosecution or the accused to file additional documents in court during the course of trial. Non filing of any document cannot be a ground to order further investigation. Some property was also seized in this case and produced by police in Court.”
3. It is impugning the same, the present application is filed by the defacto-complainant against the respondent-State representing by the Public Prosecutor, S.H.O, Ramgopalpet supra. The contentions in the application are that the learned Magistrate went wrong in his observations in para No.7 saying Court has no power to direct investigating officer to array a particular person or to delete or to interfere with the investigation conducted by the investigating officer or to direct how an investigation is to be conducted and the proper remedy is only to file an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C at the appropriate stage, if there is any material in not choosing to order further investigation to array other accused or to recover any property. It is also the submission that the learned Magistrate also went wrong in saying investigating officer is at liberty to file some of the documents not filed with charge sheet, during trial and thereby that is also not a ground of non-filing of some documents or non-seizure of further property to order investigation.
4. Heard at length and perused the material on record including the expression of Apex Court in Vinay Tyagi V. Irshad Ali (2013(1) ALD (Crl.) 519 SC = (2013)5 SCC 762).
5. Now, the point for consideration is (i) whether there are any grounds to order further investigation and if so, the impugned order of the learned Magistrate is unsustainable with observation merely because some other remedy available to the defacto-complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C during trial or any availabili
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
