Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 24278
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
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 authority to conduct investigations rests with the Investigating Officer, with the Magistrate's role limited to overseeing final reports without intervening in preliminary stages.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 169 and 173(8) - Permission for further investigation denied - Judicial Magistrate's order allowing further investigation after delay improper as the initial report under Section 169 was pending without decision - Court clarifies investigative powers of the officer, emphasizing procedural propriety. (Paras 11, 12, 20)
(B) The role of the Investigating Officer is primarily to conduct investigations without interference from the Magistrate, who should consider the prosecution's final report for any legal proceeding rather than intervening earlier. (Para 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, accused no. 7, challenged an order allowing further investigation after four years of pending application for his discharge due to insufficient evidence.
Findings of Court:
The order allowing further investigation was quashed, emphasizing the investigative officer's prerogative.
Issues: Whether the Magistrate had the authority to grant permission for further investigation post a delayed application for discharge after four years.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the investigative powers lay squarely with the Investigating Officer, and the Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to order further investigation without a final report submission.
Result: Petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. initial case details leading to the petition. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legality of the magistrate's order. (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. court's observations on investigative authority and procedures. (Para 11 , 12 , 17) |
| 4. final decision and implications of the ruling. (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 grievance of the petitioner is that once the report under Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. was submitted and it was under consid
