IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.Somashekar, J.
Sri. Chandappa Gowda S/o Poovani Gowda - Petitioner
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.2208 of 2018, Criminal Petition No.1928 of 2017 8678 of 2016
Decided On : 27-01-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226 and 227 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 173(2) r/w 173(8),156(3) , 319 and 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 376 and 302 - Offences Rape and Murder – Reinvestigation of case - Writ of mandamus - Central Bureau of Investigation - Powers of a magistrate - Seeking direction to first respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation to reinvestigate case originally in Cr. in respect of which investigation was done by Investigating Agency and laid chargesheet against accused - Whether Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 173(8) to direct further investigation
Finding of the court: A Magistrate has power to direct ‘further investigation’ after filing of a police report in terms of Section 173(6) of the Code - Magistrate before whom a report under Section 173(2) of the Code is filed, is empowered in law to direct ‘further investigation’ and require police to submit a further or a supplementary report - Therefore, it cannot arise for consideration at a later part of case as trial has already commenced against accused - Even if fresh investigation as sought for in a writ of mandamus is granted, certainly investigation will be deviating investigation reports of Police Station, CID and CBI, Chennai - Therefore, seeking writ of mandamus to direct CBI to reinvestigate case in Crime for offence punishable under Sections 376 and 302 of IPC is unwarranted and even if said relief is granted, same shall be diluting powers under Section 173(8) which is a statutory power which is akin to Section 173(2) for investigation
Result: writ petition dismissed and Crl.Ps allowed
ORDER :
Shri Chandappa Gowda who is the complainant/first informant in Spl.C.No.203/2016 in Cr.No.250/2012 of Belthangady P.S. and so also arising in RC.2(S)/2014CBI/SCB/CHN for the offences punishable under Section 376 and 302 of the IPC, 1860 has filed W.P.No.2208/2018 seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation to reinvestigate the aforesaid case originally in Cr.No.250/2012, in respect of which investigation was done by the Investigating Agency and laid the chargesheet against the accused in Spl.C.No.203/2016 vide Annexure-“A” and for such other order/direction deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.1928/2017 have filed the said petition aggrieved by the order dated 07.02.2017 passed by the L Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru allowing the petition filed by PW-1/Respondent No.2 herein for further investigation in Spl.Case No.203/2016 and have prayed to set aside the said order.
3. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.8678/2016 have filed the said petition seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 19.11.2016 passed by the Court of the LAddl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.203/2016 allowing the petition filed by PW1 and summoning the petitioners herein as additional accused and seeking further to quash all further proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.203/2016 in respect of the petitioners.
4. The petition in W.P.No.2208/2018 has been preferred by one Chandappa Gowda who is the first informant under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking for a court monitored investigation to be conducted by the Respondent No.1/CBI by way of reinvestigation in respect of the original Cr.No.250/2012 dated 09.10.2012 registered by the Belthangady Police. Investigation has been conducted in the said case in Cr.No.250/2012 and chargesheet has already been filed in Spl.C.C.No.203/2016.
5. The father of the victim-Sowjanya, namely Chandappa Gowda had filed an application under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. to summon three persons proposed as accused on the ground that there being material on record to show that they have committed the alleged offences. Accordingly, the Trial Court had directed to issue summons to the petitioners being proposed as accused in Cr.No.250/2012. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.8678/2016 namely Mr. Dhiraj Jain/first petitioner, second petitioner Mr. Uday Jain and third petitioner Mr. Mallik Jain have been proposed as accused in Spl.C.C.No.203/2016. Crl.P.8678/2016 is filed seeking to set aside the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.203/2016 dated 19.11.2016 allowing the petition filed by PW1/Chandappa Gowda and seeking to quash all further proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.203/2016 as against the said petitioners.
6. But however, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been filed by him after Chandappa Gowda was examined as PW1 in the aforesaid case wherein the Investigating Agency has laid the chargesheet against the accused namely Santhosh Rao, S/o. Sudhakar Rao for offences under Section 376 and Section 302 IPC.
7. An application under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was filed by Chandappa Gowda/PW1 in Spl.C.C.No.203/2016 seeking for further investigation in the matter and submitting the chargesheet afresh. The Trial Court by its order dated 07.2.2017 directed the CBI to take the matter on priority basis and conduct further investigation by considering the observations made in the order and to submit the report by 24.04.2017. The same is borne out from the ordersheet maintained by the Trial Court in Spl.C.C.No.203/2016.
8. Crl.P.No.1928/2017 is relating to an order passed by the Trial Court in Spl.Case No.203/2016 in respect of the said application filed under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. Similarly, Crl.P.No.8678/2016 is relating to an order passed by the Trial Court in Spl.Case No.203/2016 in respect of an application filed under Sect
Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Others
Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr.
Bharati Tamang Vs. Union of India and Others
Brindaban Das and Others Vs. State of West Bengal
Chandra Deo Singh Vs Prokash Chandra Bose & Anr (1964) SCR 639: AIR 1963 SC 1430
Gudalure M.J. Cherian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
H.N.Reshbud and Inder Singh V. State of Delhi (1955) 1 SCR F 1150: AIR 1955 SC 196
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Hemant Dhasmana v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
In Hemanth Dhashmana Vs. Cbi and Another (2001) 7 SCC 536
In Union Public Service Commission Vs. S.Papaiah (1997) 7 SCC 614
Jogendra Yadav and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another (2015) 9 SCC 244
K.V.Rajendran Vs. Superintendent of Police, Cbcid South Zone
Kishan Lal Vs. Dharmendra Bafna and Another (2009) 7 SCC 685
Lal Lsuraj @ Suraj Singh and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand (2009) 2 SCC 696
Michael Machado and Another Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another
Narendra G. Goel Vs. State of Maharastra and Another
Ram Jethmalani and others Vs. Union of India and others
Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.)
Ram Lal Narang Vs. State (Delhi Administration)
Rama Chaudhary v. State of Bihar
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2008) 2 SCC 409
Samaj Parivartan Samuday and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2012) 7 SCC 407
Shree Shree Ram Janki Ji Asthan Tapovan Mandir Vs. State of Jharkhand (2019) 6 SCC 777
Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs. State of A.P. and Others
State of Maharashtra v. Sharat Chandra Vinayak Dongre
Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah & Ors
Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali Alias Deepak and Others (2013) 5 SCC 762
Yuvaraj Ambar Mohite v. State of Maharashtra
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Another Vs. State of Gujrat and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.