SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL)
Vinod Ram – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory, Administration of Andaman and Nicobar Islands – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred against an order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair in connection with G. R. Case No. 253 of 2021 corresponding to Aberdeen Police Station case No. 72 of 2021 under Sections 332/353/325/326/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code disposed of by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Port Blair by rejecting the petitioner's prayer for further investigation for the second time.
2. The petitioner/alleged victim's case is that on his prayer under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Aberdeen P.S. Case no. 72 of 2021 under Sections 332/353/325/326/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code was started against the opposite party no. 2.
3. On the date of incident, the opposite party no. 2 was posted as Sub-Divisional Magistrate, South Andaman at Port Blair in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, South Andaman, where the petitioner was posted as a Multi Tasking Staff (M.T.S.) and he had the responsibility to open and close the office by taking/giving the keys from residence of the Deputy Commissioner. On 25.05.2021 (date of incident) over an issue regarding the said work, t
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibai Patel
Athul Rao v. State of Karnataka
Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police
Bikash Ranjan Rout v. State through the Secretary (Home), Government of NCT of Delhi
Commissioner of Police, Delhi v. Registrar, Delhi High Court, New Delhi
Common Cause v. Union of India
Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala
E. Sivakumar v. Union of India
Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty
K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala
Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra
Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat
Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India
Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration)
Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal
State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal
A Magistrate cannot order further investigation after charges are framed; this power exists only at the pre-cognizance stage to ensure a fair investigation.
The court emphasized the necessity of fair investigation in criminal proceedings and clarified the powers of the Magistrate to order further investigation under specific circumstances.
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....
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 has the power to order further investigation even after cognizance is taken and accused appears, if the facts of the case demand so, in the interest of justice and to avoid miscarriage....
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 Magistrate cannot treat a case as a complaint after taking cognizance based on a charge-sheet; further investigation rights lie with the police.
The court affirmed that thorough investigations were conducted, finding no deficiencies or evidence of foul play, thus denying the request for re-investigation.
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.