1. Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to set aside order allowing further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC for forgery offences. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Raghvendra S. Chauhan, J
Mariam Fashiuddin – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5528/2015
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. G. S. Kamal
For the Respondents: Chetan Desai, Prabhugouda B Tumbigi
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M. G. S. Kamal
For the Respondents: Chetan Desai, Prabhugouda B Tumbigi
The High Court held that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and will not interfere with a Magistrate's order for further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. when the initial investigation was inadequate regarding serious forgery allegations.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Further Investigation - Power of Magistrate under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. - Where the investigating agency fails to provide cogent reasons for dropping specific serious offences (Forgery) from the charge sheet and neglects basic investigative steps, the Magistrate is justified in ordering further investigation to discover the truth. (Para 7)
(B) Inherent Powers of High Court - Section 482 Cr.P.C. - Interference with investigation - The vast powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be used sparingly and should not be exercised to interfere with an investigation, especially when allegations relate to serious offences. (Para 6)
Issues: Whether the order of the Magistrate directing further investigation under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC was illegal or perverse.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners argued further investigation futile as signature verification impossible on scanned copy; complainant argued investigation flawed and court should not interfere. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Magistrate found no cogent reasons for dropping forgery charges; investigating officer failed to take necessary steps; order for further investigation justified. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Inherent power under Section 482 CrPC should be used sparingly and not to interfere with investigation into serious offences. (Para 6 , 7 )
5. Petition dismissed as devoid of merit; no illegality or perversity in impugned order directing further investigation. (Para 8 )
6. Can the High Court interfere under Section 482 CrPC with an order for further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC?
No, the inherent power should be used sparingly and not to interfere with investigation, especially when allegations relate to serious offences. (Para 6 )
7. What constitutes sufficient grounds to order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC?
Cogent reasons such as the investigating officer failing to investigate crucial facts or dropping serious charges without justification constitute sufficient grounds. (Para 7 )
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.06.2015 PASSED BY VI ADDL.C.M.M. AT BENGALURU IN C.C.No.23545/2011 ON THE APPLICATION U/S.173(8) OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE AND ETC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2015 passed by the VI Addl. C.M.M Court, Bangalore, whereby, the learned Magistrate has directed further investigation under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that, Mr.Fahed Ahmed, the defacto complainant was married to Ms. Mariam Fasihuddin, petitioner No.1 on 02.08.2007 at Chandrodaya Convention Hall, Bannergatta Road, Bangalore. During the marriage, a son, Faisal, was born on 02.06.2008. According to the complainant, complainant was working in the United Kingdom, in a Software Company. He left for England on 13.07.2008 for the purpose of renewing his Visa. At the relevant time, the accused, petitioner No.1 was staying with her father along with the son. The petitioner No.1 wanted her husband to obtain a letter from the High Commissioner of India at London in order to obtain a Passport for their son, Faisal. However, due to Visa constraint, the complainant could not obtain any letter form the High Commissioner in England at London. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have obtained the Passport for Faisal. He further came to know that in the Passport application submitted by petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2, the complainant's signatures have been forged. Therefore, on 13.05.2010, the complainant filed a first information report against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 IPC. After completing the investigation, while the police filed a charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 420 r/w 34 IPC, it did not file any charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. Therefore, the complainant filed an application under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C., before the learned Magistrate and prayed for further investigation for offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. By order dated 24.06.2015, the said application has been accepted, and further investigation has been ordered. Hence, this petition before this court.
3. Mr. M. G. S. Kamal, the learned counsel for petitioner, has vehemently contended that, when the investigation officer had sent a request to the Passport Office for seeking the original application as submitted by petitioner Nos.1 and 2, he was duly informed that the original application has been weeded out and only a scanned copy has been sent to the investigation officer. According to the learned counsel, the issue whether the signature on the said application has been forged or not, cannot be decided on the basis of a scanned copy. Therefore, to order for further investigation for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC is a futile exercise. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, the learned counsel for respondent No.3, the complainant, has submitted that the investigation officer has not even bothered to investigate whether the complainant was present in India on the day when the application was duly submitted or not? Moreover, whether a finding with regard to genuineness of the signature can be given or not, and what would be the evidentiary value of the expert opinion is a matter for the trial court to consider. This court, at this stage, should not interfere with the further investigation as the allegations are for serious offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel has supported the impugned order.
5. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the impugned order.
6. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that undoubtedly the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is vast one. However, the more expansive the power, the more sp
