Back
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,
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.
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 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 court affirmed that magistrates cannot order further investigations post-cognizance without evidence of malafide, upholding the legitimacy of the charge sheet filed under Section 498A.
The court affirmed that thorough investigations were conducted, finding no deficiencies or evidence of foul play, thus denying the request for re-investigation.
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 accused has no right to seek further investigation after a charge sheet is filed, and discrepancies in evidence are to be resolved at trial.
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
