Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4649
BENCH AT NAGPUR
G. A. SANAP, J
Maheshkumar Hargovind Goyal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 502 OF 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Anil S. Mardikar, Mr. Digvijay Singh
For the Respondents: Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh
The Magistrate lacks authority to permit further investigation once an application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. is pending, which belongs solely to the Investigating Officer.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 169 and 173(8) - Powers of Investigating Officer - Challenge to Magistrate's order allowing further investigation - Initial application under Section 169 remained undecided for four years - Magistrate lacked authority to entertain the application for further investigation - Court clarified that such powers belong solely to the Investigating Officer. (Paras 16, 20)
(B) Legal Position - Magistrate's role in investigation limited; police officer's prerogative to conduct investigation established. (Paras 11, 19)
(C)
Findings of Court:
The challenged order was quashed; Investigating Officer retains right to conduct further investigation and file supplementary charge-sheet. (Paras 17, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused no.7, was involved in a case where charges of forgery and related offences were levied. The previous Investigating Officer was alleged to have improperly recommended the discharge of the petitioner based on insufficient evidence.
Findings of Court:
The order allowing further investigation was ultimately quashed, emphasizing the authoritative role of the Investigating Officer in such matters.
Issues: The central issue was the legality of the Magistrate's order permitting further investigation after a delay, and the proper application of Sections 169 and 173 of the Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that once evidence is deemed insufficient under Section 169, the powers to proceed lie with the police, without Magistrate interference, reaffirming the parameters set under Sections 169 and 173 of the Cr.P.C.
Result: The petition was allowed and the impugned order was quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the petitioner is accused of criminal charges relating to forgery. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. argument about the legality of magistrate's orders regarding investigation. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court clarifies the exclusive power of police in investigations. (Para 10 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. explanation of statutory roles of police and magistrate in investigations. (Para 11 , 12 , 18) |
| 5. final decision to allow the petition. (Para 20) |
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned advocates for the parties.
2. In this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the order dated 07.06.2022, passed below Exh.80 by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court no.10, Nagpur, whereby learned Magistrate was pleased to grant permission to the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation and file supplementary charge-sheet against the petitioner under Section 173 sub-Section (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.” for short).
3. The facts giving rise to this petition are as follows :
The petitioner is accused no.7 in a crime bearing No.343/2016, registered at Police Station, Wadi, Nagpur City, Nagpur for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The sum and substance of the case of the prosecution is that on 18.06.2016, the Tahsildar, Nagpur Gramin, lodged a report at Police Station, Wadi. In his report, he has stated that the owners of land bearing survey Nos.103/1 and 103/2, admeasuring 6.27 HR, namely the Directors of Ankur Estate Private Limited, through Kamalkishor Agrawal and Ankur Brijkishor Agrawal, created forged NA (non-agriculture) order by using the rubber stamp and making signature of the Collector. It is stated that the owners of the land i.e. accused nos.1 and 2, did not make any application for conversion of their land for NA purpose. A photocopy of the said forged NA order was submitted before the Talathi, who is later on made accused in the crime, by the petitioner/accused no.7. On the basis of the report, the Investigating Officer conducted investigation. The investigation inter-alia revealed the complicity of near about seven accused, including the petitioner, in commission of the crime.
4. The Investigating Officer on 14.05.2018 made an application under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate and submitted that the evidence against the petitioner/ accused no.7 is deficient and therefore, he is required to be released/ discharged in the crime. Learned Magistrate issued notice to the informant. The informant filed his say. This application remained pending for four years without any order.
5. The earlier Investigating Officer was changed in the year 2022. The newly appointed Investigating Officer, on 07.06.2022 not pressed the application dated 14.05.2018 made for release/ discharge of the petitioner/accused no.7 as per the provisions of Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. The application was disposed of as not pressed. Similarly, on the same day i.e. 07.06.2022, the Investigating Officer made an application (Exh.80) before the learned Magistrate and stated that the investigation vis-a-vis accused no.7 was not fairly conducted. He pointed out that there has been ample evidence against the petitioner/accused no.7. According to the Investigating Officer, accused no.7 had produced photocopy of forged NA order before the Talathi and based on the said order, mutation entry was carried out. The Investigating Officer, therefore, prayed for permission to conduct further investigation and to file supplementary charge-sheet by invoking section 173, sub-section (8) of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner/accused no.7. Learned Magistrate, by order dated 07.06.2022 granted the prayer made by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner/accused no.7, being aggrieved by this order, has come before this Court by filing this petition.
6. The main gri
