Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Hanuman Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 229 and 230/2022
Decided On : 07-07-2022
Court's Power - Further Investigation - Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 463, 465 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, practicing advocates, alleged victimization by police due to uncovering irregularities. Multiple FIRs were filed against them, and negative final reports were submitted. The State moved for further investigation, which was rejected, but a subsequent application was accepted by the trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the trial Court had the discretion to permit further investigation without providing detailed reasons. It examined the need for further investigation and found the previous final report to be cursory and perfunctory, allowing the further investigation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the trial Court's decision to permit further investigation without detailed reasons was valid and whether the previous final report was sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the trial Court had the discretion to permit further investigation without providing detailed reasons. It also found the previous final report to be cursory and perfunctory, justifying the need for further investigation.
Final Decision: The writ petitions failed, and the stay applications were disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Mehta, J. - The instant petitions call in question orders dated 17.05.2022 and 20.05.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, No. 4, Bikaner and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bikaner respectively (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'), while invoking this Court's powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Before adverting to the arguments advanced by the rival counsel, it would be apt to unfold the factual canvas of the case.
3. The petitioners are practicing advocates at Bikaner and Jaipur. According to the petitioners, the police authorities are/were having vengeance against them because, they had unravelled various irregularities/illegalities and corruption in various government departments including police.
4. Initially, an FIR being FIR No. 39 dated 16.02.2010 came to be lodged by one Kundanmal at P.S. Kotgate, Bikaner, inter alia, levelling allegations of forgery, filing false complaints, extortion and creating false and forged documents.
5. Another FIR being FIR No. 47/2010 came to be registered at P.S. Naya Shahar, Bikaner at the instance of Constable Gajanand, posted at P.S. Kotgate, Bikaner reporting that during the investigation of FIR No. 39 dated 16.02.2010, the petitioners' house and office were searched and various seals, particularly that of Junior Specialist, Government Satellite Hospital, Bikaner was found and seized. It was alleged that petitioners had been misusing the official seals which amounted to offences under Sections 420, 463 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. In relation to FIR No. 39, which was registered at Kotgate, Bikaner, the Investigating Officer, after due investigation, submitted negative final report on 23.01.2014, inter alia, observing that the complainant has filed a false written report as he was having animosity with the accused persons (petitioners herein).
7. Negative final report also came to be filed qua FIR No. 47/2010, registered at P.S. Naya Shahar, Bikaner on 27.12.2013, concluding that the seal that was found in petitioners' premises, might have been used for attesting certain documents but ingredients of Sections 420, 463 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code were absent, because arms license was not issued to the petitioners.
8. Upon submission of the above mentioned final negative reports, the complainant filed protest petitions and the same are pending consideration before the trial Court(s). It is noteworthy that in both the cases, charges have not been framed yet.
9. Having narrated the factual background, Mr. Sandhu, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitions involve common questions of facts and law and requested that they be decided conjointly. He however, requested the Court to take Writ Petition No. 229/2022, as the lead case and made submissions accordingly.
10. It was firstly contended by learned counsel that because of the forthrightness of the petitioners, large scale corruption rampant in the government departments including the police department came to limelight due to which the administration got annoyed with the petitioners and multiple FIRs came to be lodged against them and the petitioners had to file at least 8 criminal misc. petitions challenging those FIRs. He submitted that finally, negative final reports came to be filed qua almost all the FIRs and resultantly, those criminal misc. petitions were rendered infructuous.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited Court's attention towards the order dated 13.08.2018, passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 400/2010 and highlighted that a Coordinate Bench of this Court had noticed its concern about petitioners' victimization at the hands of State machinery.
12. Learned counsel apprised the court that during the pendency of protest petition, the State moved an application for returning the case diary for further investigation, which came to be rejected by the trial Court vide its order dated 16.12.2014. The trial
The trial Court has the discretion to permit further investigation without providing detailed reasons, and the need for further investigation can be justified based on the quality of previous investi....
The investigation agency has the statutory right to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure without seeking permission from the Magistrate.
The police have the right to conduct further investigation after a charge sheet is filed without needing prior permission from the Magistrate.
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 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....
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that further investigation is a statutory right of the police under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C, and formal permission from the Court is required if t....
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
