Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, GWALIOR BENCH
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
State of M.P. – Applicant
Versus
Anil Sharma and Others - Respondents
M.Cr.C. No.9801 Of 2021
Decided On : 02-07-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application under section 482 of cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. overview of the investigations and applications. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. discussion on the missing personal diary. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. response of police officers regarding investigation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. court’s directives on further inquiry and investigation. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. arguments concerning police conduct and diary. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. court’s reflection on the gravity of police misconduct. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. conclusion on granting further investigation. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. details on prior court orders and implications. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. supreme court’s provisions on further investigation. (Para 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 11. final observations on police investigation conduct. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 12. order for further investigation and treatment of evidence. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
ORDER :
1. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by State of Madhya Pradesh against order dated 7-12-2019 passed by 1st A.S.J., Dabra, Distt. Gwalior in S.T. No.26/2017, by which the application filed by the applicant under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
2. The necessary facts for disposal of present application in short are that the complainant lodged a report alleging that co-accused Ramlakhan along with other respondents entered into a conspiracy and by impersonating respondent no.1 as his father Bhagwanlal (Respondent no.3) sold the land in question to her. Thereafter, the respondents also persuaded her that more land is available. Accordingly, an additional amount of Rs. 35,00,000 was given by the complainant. However, the sale deed was not executed. Only thereafter, when the complainant enquired into the matter, then came to know that even the first sale deed has not been executed by respondent no.3, but it has been executed by respondent no.1 by impersonating himself as respondent no.3. Accordingly, offence under Sections 419 ,420,467,468,471 of I.P.C. was registered.
3. During the pendency of investigation, “personal diary” of the complainant was also seized in which acknowledgment of receipt of money was given by respondent no.4.
4. The police filed charge sheet against respondents no. 1 to 3, but kept the investigation pending against the respondents no. 4 and 5. However, surprisingly, the “personal diary” of the complainant was not filed along with the charge sheet, although the seizure memo of “personal diary” of the complainant was filed.
5. It appears, that earlier the respondent no.4 filed several applications for grant of anticipatory bail, but all of them were rejected.
6. The respondent no. 4, had also filed M.Cr.C. No.1718/2015 for quashment of F.I.R., but during the pendency of the said application, an order under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. was passed by the Trial Court, thereby summoning the respondent no. 4 and 5 as additional accused. Therefore, M.Cr.C. No. 1718/2015 was dismissed by order dated 4-2-2019. It is also not out of place to mention here, that the respondent no. 4 had also challenged the order passed by the Trial Court under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. which was registered as Cr.R. No. 516/2019, which was also dismissed by this Court by order dated 4-2-2019.
7. The respondent no. 4 also filed an application for grant of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 16076 of 2019. The said application was dismissed by order dated 23-4-2019 in the light of the acknowledgment of receipt of money given by the respondent no.4.
8. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 filed third application for grant of bail which was registered as M.Cr.C. No. 37198/2019. One of the ground raised in the said bail application was that the respondent no.4 had never given any acknowledgment of receipt and it appears that the first bail application was rejected on the basis of evidence which had never come on record. It was also submitted by the Counsel for the respondent no. 4 that the
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....
A fair investigation is crucial; discrepancies in witness testimonies and procedural lapses can lead to acquittal if the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Investigating Officers retain the right to conduct further investigation and file supplementary charge-sheets without court permission, although seeking such permission is an established practice.
Point of law: Article 21 of Constitution not only takes within its fold, the enforcement of the rights of the accused but also the rights of the deceased.
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 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 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
