Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1943
High Court of Delhi
VED PRAKASH VAISH, J.
Bikash Ranjan Rout
Versus
State
CRL. M.C. No. 3386 of 2013
Decided on : 20-08-2014
For the Petitioner:Gautam Kumar & Niranjan Behera, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Praveen Bhati, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Magistrate has the power to direct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice.
Headnote:
Section 482 - Criminal Procedure - 173 - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. to direct further investigation. It highlighted the distinction between 'further investigation' and 're-investigation', emphasizing that the former is permissible while the latter is prohibited. The court referred to various judgments to establish that the Magistrate has the power to direct further investigation in the interest of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and a notice issued by the District Investigation Unit under Section 160 Cr.P.C. The case involved a complaint of forged signatures on cheques, leading to the filing of a charge-sheet. The Trial Court observed deficiencies in the investigation and ordered further investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Trial Court's order for further investigation was justified based on the deficiencies in the initial investigation and the need to reach a logical conclusion.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Magistrate had the jurisdiction under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to direct further investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that 'further investigation' is permissible under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. and highlighted the distinction between 'further investigation' and 're-investigation'. It emphasized the Magistrate's power to direct further investigation in the interest of justice.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed as the court found no illegality or infirmity in the Trial Court's order for further investigation.
1. By way of present petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.‘), the petitioner has assailed the order dated 05.02.2013 passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (West), Delhi and letter dated 22.04.2013 under Section 160 Cr.P.C sent by District Investigation Unit, West District, Police Post MIG Flats, J-Block, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.
2. Shorn off unnecessary details the facts of the case are that the complainant, Akshay Jain lodged a complaint dated 28.09.2007 on the basis of which FIR No.426/2007 under Sections 420/468/471 IPC was registered at P.S. Janakpuri, Delhi. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet for the offence under Sections 420/468/471 IPC was filed.
3. After hearing arguments on charge and considering the charge sheet, the petitioner was discharged by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (West) Delhi vide impugned order dated 05.02.2013 and Additional Commissioner of Police (West) Delhi was directed to make appreciation of quality of investigation done in this case and to analyze the process of efficacy of sending any charge-sheet before the prosecution branch for the purpose of scrutiny as in fact, nothing is done by the investigating officer to comply with the objections raised so as to present a viable case of any offence against any accused and even higher officers approve the filing of charge-sheet without sufficient materials. It was also observed that the case required further investigation to reach a logical conclusion. Thereafter, notice under Section 160 of Cr.P.C. dated 22.4.2013 was issued by District Investigation Unit, West District, New Delhi.
4. Vide impugned order dated 05.02.2013 and notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court was not empowered to order for further investigation in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. In support of his submission, he has relied upon judgment in Reeta Nag vs. State of West Bengal and Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 129.
6. Per contra, learned APP for the State argued that sub-section (8) of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. permits the investigating agency to further investigate the matter and file the supplementary charge-sheet.
7. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State and perused the material placed on record.
8. The short question which comes up for consideration is whether the Magistrate has jurisdiction under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. to direct further investigation.
9. Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. deals with the information to the police and their powers to investigate. Section 173 of Cr.P.C. envisages the report of police officer on completion of police investigation, which reads as under: -
“173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation–
(1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.
[(1A) The investigation in relation to rape of a child may be completed within three months from the date on which the information was recorded by the officer in charge of the police station.]
(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating—
(a) the names of the parties;
(b) the nature of the information;
(c) the names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;
(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;
(e) whether the accused has been arrested;
(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;
(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170;
[(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached
