IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
The State of Tripura - Petitioners
Versus
Sri Bimal Chakraborty & Ors. - Respondents
CRL.REV.P.12 of 2015
Decided On : 03-01-2019
Revision Petition - Challenge to refusal to take cognizance of police report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. - IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 173(2), Section 409/468/471, Section 34 of IPC, Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 120-B of IPC - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., the requirement of completion of investigation before filing a police report, and the permissibility of further investigation. The court's decision was influenced by the legal provisions of Section 173(2) and Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., as well as the interpretation provided by previous court decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The State filed a revision petition challenging the refusal to take cognizance of a police report filed under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. in connection with a case involving offenses under IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. The refusal was based on the belief that the investigation was incomplete at the time of filing the report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal to take cognizance was justified as the police report was filed before the completion of the investigation, contrary to the requirements of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. The court also emphasized the permissibility of further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and the need for the report to contain all relevant details of the offense.
Issues: The issues revolved around the timing of filing the police report, the permissibility of further investigation, and the interpretation of Section 173(2) and Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 173(2) and Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., emphasizing the requirement of completion of investigation before filing a police report and the permissibility of further investigation under specific circumstances.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revision petition, affirming the refusal to take cognizance of the police report and clarifying the process for handling multiple parts of the report for distinct offenses.
1. The State by means of this revision petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. has challenged the order dated 16.01.2015 delivered in Special Case No.01 of 2015 by the Special Judge [the Session Judge], West Tripura, Agartala, but the challenge is restricted to refusal to take cognizance of the police report filed under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Bishalgarh P.S. Case No.135/2014 under Section 409/468/471 read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of the IPC. The reasons assigned for such refusal are as follows :
“Going through the police report filed, I find that at page 374 of the volume 2 at para 5 it is stated that further investigation is continuing against the arrested and absconding accused persons.
In my considered opinion, this stands on the way of accepting the police report because section 173(2)(i) says that as soon as investigation 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 etc. What follows from the above is that on completion of investigation only, a police report can be filed by the O.C., of the P.S. and not before.
In my opinion, provision of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. does not permit filing of police report at the same time saying that the investigation is in progress because completion of investigation is sine qua non to filing of charge-sheet.
Sub section 8 of course permits further investigation but is under a different circumstance when subsequent to filing police report, new facts are revealed requiring further investigation. Filing final report and in the same report stating that further investigation is in progress is not permissible. In this regard observation of the Apex Court in AIR 2004 SC 2078 may be quoted which runs as follows :
“Further investigation is not ruled out merely on grounds that it may delay trial. Even after Court takes cognizance of offence on earlier report submitted by police. It is open to police to conduct further investigation in a proper manner. On fresh facts coming to light police should seek permission of Court for further investigation.”
In the aforesaid scenario the police report submitted in the form as narrated above cannot be accepted and the O.C., Bishalgarh P.S. is required to file the report in the final form as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months from today. The report filed is however retained in the Court.”
2. Mr. B. Chowdhury, learned PP appearing for the State has submitted that the reasons so assigned by the Special Judge are grossly erroneous and completely unsustainable. Merely because in the police report it has been mentioned that further investigation was continuing by the investigating officer, the said police report was not accepted by giving „a pedantic interpretation? of Section 173(i),(ii) of the Cr.P.C. The Special Judge for the said reason has considered the police report as partial and not filed on completion of the investigation. Hence, the police have been directed to file the complete police report within the stipulated period for taking cognizance by the Magistrate. Mr. Chowdhury, learned PP has submitted that the police report as filed in the court of the Special Judge was in respect of a “complete transaction”. Mr. Chowdhury, learned PP has further submitted that it was the duty incumbent upon the Special Judge to consider the charge-sheet [the police report] and to come to an inference whether any offence has been disclosed. Mr. Chowdhury, learned PP has continued to submit that on completion of the investigation for the said transaction, the police report was submitted. From the said police report, it transpires that the accused persons in order to commit misappropriation of fund and pecuniary gain had hatched a criminal conspiracy. There are materials to be prima-facie satisfied that a sum of
Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel versus Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel and Others
Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi versus State of Gujarat and Others
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.