IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.
Manishaben Vrajlal Thakkar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Criminal Revision Application (Against Order Passed By Subordinate Court) No. 10 of 2024
Decided on : 18-04-2024
Revision - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 397, Section 401 - Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. v/s The State of Gujarat & Anr. [2019 (17) SCC 1] - The court dismissed the revision application filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 15.07.2023 passed below Exhibit 23 in Criminal Case No. 5001743 of 2016 by the Ld. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad at Court No. 5, and to allow the application below Exhibit 23 preferred by the applicant herein in Criminal Case No. 5001743 of 2016, justice; in the interest of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a criminal complaint filed against ex-employees of a company for illegally obtaining and using the company's technical knowhow, breaching a tri-party agreement. The charge-sheet was filed, and the complainant sought further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but the application was rejected by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant repeatedly sought further investigation without fresh material, attempting to derail the trial. The court noted that the complainant's right to seek further investigation cannot be misused, and the impugned order was found to be legal and proper.
Issues: The issues involved the complainant's repeated applications for further investigation, the rejection of the application by the trial court, and the complainant's direct approach to the High Court instead of the Sessions Court for filing the revision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant's right to seek further investigation cannot be misused by filing repeated applications without fresh material. The court also noted that the complainant should have approached the Sessions Court first for filing the revision, without demonstrating any special circumstances.
Final Decision: The revision application was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
JUDGMENT :
Rule. Learned Advocate Mr.Shivang Shah waives service of notice for respondents no.2 and 3 and learned APP Mr.H K Patel waives service of notice for respondent-State. With the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. By way of this revision, filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘the Code’), the petitioner – org. complainant has prayed for the following main reliefs:
3. The facts coming forth from the record are summarized as under:
3.1 That FIR being I-CR No.41 of 2016 with Vatva Police Station was lodged on 08.06.2016 inter alia stating that the accused persons were ex- employees with a company namely K.H.S. Machinery Pvt. Ltd. While serving with the complainant company the accused persons had illegally gathered the internal technical knowhow of the machines manufactured by the complainant company and despite the fact that the said information was neither to be utilized by them nor meant to be shared with anybody outside the company whosoever, the accused persons in connivance with one another and in view of criminal conspiracy hatched amongst themselves had illegally obtained the said information and had used the same for their own benefit, as such breached the terms of agreement of company. Eventually a tri-party agreement dated 23.10.2012 entered between parties is violated later on.
3.2 After registration of FIR under Sections 408, 409, 406, 410 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, investigation was started and upon conclusion of the investigation, the charge- sheet came to be filed before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 5, Ahmedabad on 29.10.2016 which culminated into Criminal Case No. 5001743 of 2016.
3.3 Since vital documents were not collected as per say of petitioner, the petitioner had earlier addressed a communication dated 09.02.2017 to investigating agency to carry further investigation under the provisions of section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 however no action whatsoever had been taken by the Investigating Agency.
3.4 That, meanwhile the accused persons had approached this Hon'ble Court for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of FIR vide Special Criminal Application No. 999 of 2017 wherein initially stay was granted by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 27.02.2017.
3.5 In view of the inaction on part of the IO to act upon the representation dated 09.02.2017, the petitioner had approached this Court vide Special Criminal Application No. 3177 of 2017 and said petition came to be disposed of as per order dated 18.09.2017 upon the statement of Mr. V.N. Vaghela, Police Sub-Inspector, Vatva G.I.D.C. Police Station, Ahmedabad that the representation dated 09.02.2017 shall be considered and acted as expeditiously as possible not later than two months. However, in view of the stay granted by this Court in the quashing application preferred by the accused persons, the application being Special Criminal Application No. 3177 of 2017 was withdrawn by the first informant with liberty to seek appropriate clarification vide order dated 01.12.2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 29289 of 2017.
3.6 Consequently, petitioner herein had approached this Hon'ble Court vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 2 of 2018 in Special Criminal Application No. 999 of 2017 (the petition moved by accused seeking quashment of FIR) inter alia praying for further investigation of the offence, pending hearing of quashing application p
Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v/s Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel reported in 2017 (4) SCC 177
Bhagwant Singh v. Commr. of Police
Pranab Kumar Mitra vs State of West Bengal AIR 1959 SC 144
Pooja Pal v. UOI (2016) 3 SCC 135
Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361
Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 129
Sivan Pillai v.Rajamohan and others [1978 KLT 223]
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. v/s The State of Gujarat & Anr. [2019 (17) SCC 1]
The complainant's right to seek further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should not be misused by filing repeated applications without fresh material, and t....
Court affirmed that Magistrate can order further investigation, but not after charges have been framed without compelling justification.
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 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 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 retroactively classify a case as a complaint after taking cognizance based on an investigation report, as further investigations are solely under the police's purview without re....
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.