SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 26468

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. Babu, J
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
S.S MONI – Respondent
Crl.Rev.Pet 650/2023



Advocates:
R.ANIL R, MANU TOM, B.RAMAN PILLAI (SR.)(R-260), SUJESH MENON V.B.(S-1613), THOMAS SABU VADAKEKUT(KL/001082/2017), MAHESH BHANU S.(K/1620/2018), RESSIL LONAN(K/1251/2020), BALAMURALI K.P.(K/000920/2018), SHAJI T.M.(K/000368/2020), RENIL IQUBAL K.(K/001435/2021)

The investigating agency is not legally bound to seek permission of the court for further investigation.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure - Sections 173(8), 173(2) - The court held that the investigating agency is not legally bound to seek permission of the court for further investigation, and the court committed a jurisdictional error in dismissing the application on the ground of lack of bonafides.

Fact of the Case:

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, V.A.C.B Palakkad filed criminal revision petitions challenging various orders passed by the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur. The V.A.C.B had submitted final reports before the Special Court alleging offences under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 120(B) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The V.A.C.B later submitted applications seeking further investigation, which were rejected by the Special Court on the ground of lack of bonafides, though the court directed the investigating agency to complete the further investigation within two months.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the V.A.C.B was not legally bound to seek permission of the court for further investigation, and the court below committed a serious jurisdictional error in dismissing the application on the ground of lack of bonafides.

Issues: Whether the investigating agency is legally bound to seek permission of the court for further investigation?

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle laid down in the case of Peethambaran Vs. State of Kerala (2023 SCC OnLine SC 553), which held that the investigating agency is not legally bound to seek permission of the court for further investigation.

Final Decision: The court granted the permission sought for and dismissed the criminal revision petitions as withdrawn.

ORDER

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, V.A.C.B Palakkad is the revision petitioner in all these matters. The Revision Petitioner challenges various orders passed by the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thrissur.

2. In Crl.Rev.Pet.No.688 of 2023, the petitioner challenges the Order dated 23.11.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.131/2021 in C.C No.2/2011. In Crl.Rev.Pet.No.741 of 2023 the challenge is to the order dated 23.11.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.132/2021 in C.C No.32/2010. The petitioner challenges the order dated 23.11.2022 in Crl.M.P.No.130/2021 in C.C No.22/2011. 3. In the above referred Calendar cases, the V.A.C.B submitted Final Reports before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, alleging offences under Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the P. C. Act and Sections 120 (B) and 420 of the IPC . The V.A.C.B, thereafter, submitted an application seeking further investigation before the Special Court. The Special Court held that the permission of the Court is not required for further investigation and that the Investigating agency is at liberty to proceed with further investigation. The Special Court also held that there was no bonafides in these petitions. Though the Special Court rejected the applications on the ground that there was no bonafides in the applications, the Court directed the Investigating agency to complete further investigation within a period not more than two months.

4. Heard the learned Special GP and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. In challenge to the impugned orders, the petitioner pleaded the ground that the V.A.C.B was not legally bound to seek permission of the court and therefore, the court below committed a serious jurisdictional error in dismissing the application. The learned Special GP placed a Government Order dated 04.05.2024, seeking withdrawal of the Criminal Revision Petitions following the principle declared in Peethambaran Vs.

State of Kerala (2023 SCC OnLine SC 553).

The permission sought for is granted. The Criminal Revision Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top